National wealth and international influence can interconnect, but they do not necessarily correlate. Russia’s GDP is currently broadly equal to that of Canada, yet Russia is a far more influential country. For its part, the EU struggles to bring its collective weight to bear on questions of security and traditional foreign policy, but has proven adept at leveraging its combined market power in the field of global regulatory standards and in striking major trade agreements.
These are reminders that while the size and scope of the UK’s national assets will matter, they are no guarantee of future international influence. An effective strategy for their deployment will be at least as important. The likely change in Britain’s relative economic position in 2030 brings into sharp relief the need for the UK to focus its efforts and to coordinate its assets with its main partners if it is to have a good chance of achieving its global goals in the future. But, as discussed in the next section, any strategy will also depend in part on the licence that policymakers believe they have from the public to apply the country’s precious resources to the pursuit of their foreign and security policy priorities.
An ambivalent public
A country’s international influence depends on more than just its material resources. It also depends on a mix of intangibles, including technological innovation, the quality of policymaking, bureaucratic efficiency, and the competence and charisma of political leaders. Britain’s ability to build a world-spanning empire in the 19th century illustrates the relevance of this mix. Most of these dynamics lie beyond the remit of this paper. But one issue that must be considered is the level of popular cohesion in the face of future external challenges.
To start with, for all the new hurdles facing the UK after its exit from the EU, it is possible that there will be a new sense of national agency among British politicians and citizens. Outside the EU, UK policymakers will not be able to blame the EU for the country’s ills or hide the failures of policymaking in Westminster behind claims of an ‘undemocratic’ Brussels. By being more alone in the world, they will have a greater incentive to fix their own problems – and little choice but to do so. Perversely, membership of the EU appeared to disconnect many UK political leaders, on the right and left, from their predecessors’ traditional pragmatism. For over 30 years, the country indulged in an endless debate about the UK’s role in the future of EU integration, rather than making thoughtful assessments of how EU membership could help mitigate risks and maximize opportunities for the country.
Outside the EU, UK policymakers will not be able to blame the EU for the country’s ills or hide the failures of policymaking in Westminster behind claims of an ‘undemocratic’ Brussels.
Attitudes to European defence are an example of new-found British pragmatism. Despite continued misgivings after the Brexit referendum, Conservative policymakers have since stood aside to allow EU members to increase their defence integration. They no longer fear that each EU decision on foreign and security policy might be a precursor to an expansion of qualified majority voting that would circumscribe British sovereignty. But the potential for greater pragmatism in dealing with European neighbours on shared challenges falls a long way short of the ambitious foreign policy implied by the ‘Global Britain’ mantra. And the latest opinion polling raises questions about whether there will be public support in the coming years for an activist approach.
Britain emerged from its Brexit chrysalis and entered the COVID-19 crisis as a still-divided country. The 2019 British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey reveals that only 7 per cent of respondents felt ‘very strongly’ attached to one of the country’s political parties, equalling the record low proportion in the 2018 survey. In contrast, 45 per cent classified themselves as either ‘very strong’ Remainers or ‘very strong’ Leavers, 5 percentage points more than in 2018. Another third thought of themselves as ‘fairly strong’ Remainers or Leavers. The country is still split into two halves, therefore, with Remainers far more pessimistic and Leavers far more optimistic about their economic futures and national identity after Brexit.
What might these popular attitudes mean for this and future governments as they seek to redefine the UK’s global role? The BSA survey points to an interesting development. Remainers and Leavers may still be deeply split on the value of the UK’s relationship with the EU, but they broadly share similar views on how to manage certain aspects of relations with the outside world after Brexit. For example, 48 per cent of Remainers join the 82 per cent of Leavers who believe EU migrants should go through the same entry requirements as non-EU migrants. At the same time, Remainers and Leavers both overwhelmingly support retaining the EU’s strong safeguards on animal welfare, reflected in their shared opposition to the import of hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken – a worrying sign for proponents of a more deregulated, free-trading Britain. On genetically modified crop imports, the Leavers are even more sceptical than the Remainers.
Remainers and Leavers also appear united in their lack of trust in politicians and the political system. Only 15 per cent of those surveyed said they trust British governments ‘just about always’ or ‘most of the time’, while 34 per cent said they ‘almost never’ trust British governments, the worst figure since 2009 and the financial crash. And Leavers still trust government the least. Between 2016 and 2019, the number of Leavers who say they ‘almost never trust’ the government increased by 8 percentage points to 40 per cent. The one area where Leave voters are more trusting of the government than Remainers, however, is foreign policy. According to a survey by the British Foreign Policy Group (BFPG) published in mid-2020, a little under two-thirds of Leavers trust the government to act in the national interest on foreign policy. Remainers offer a mirror image, with close to two-thirds not trusting the government to represent the national interest.
On the separate issue of interest and engagement in politics, the BSA survey shows that this grew among the public significantly around the 2016 referendum and – while having slipped somewhat – remains historically elevated. This could be healthy for the future of UK democracy, but it also could have a constraining effect on this and future governments’ room for manoeuvre on foreign policy. David Cameron notoriously discovered to his cost how cautious MPs have become in the face of a more engaged but sceptical public in respect of foreign policy, when in August 2013 he lost a Commons vote on conducting airstrikes against Syrian government forces as punishment for their use of chemical weapons against civilians. The fact that increased popular interest in politics is accompanied by an increase in political polarization means the government may struggle to gain majority public support for a more activist foreign policy. And, although there appears to be strong support for the UK continuing to spend nearly 3 per cent of GDP on all its international activities, this offers little guidance as to what majorities of the public believe this spending should be targeted towards.
The fact that increased popular interest in politics is accompanied by an increase in political polarization means the government may struggle to gain majority public support for a more activist foreign policy.
To the extent that there is a popular mood around Britain’s place in the world, it is one of caution. The BFPG survey shows a sharp increase in the number of Britons who reject the notion of being a ‘global citizen’, up from 34 per cent of respondents in 2019 to 46 per cent in 2020. The BFPG survey also reported that 36 per cent of Britons would prefer the government to focus on the country’s own economic and security interests. Only 16 per cent believe the country should emphasize its support for democracy and human rights, and 32 per cent favour striking a balance between the two.
Although there is still support for the UK’s traditional role in providing humanitarian assistance, only small percentages of those surveyed were interested in seeing British funds go to achieving more structural goals, such as increasing women’s education or protecting women from violence. There was similar popular ambivalence in a survey on NATO by the Pew Research Center. Some 65 per cent of respondents said they had a favourable view of NATO, but only 55 per cent said they would support the UK using military force if a fellow member were attacked by Russia (though this percentage is higher than in most other NATO countries).
A key question is how this contradictory popular outlook will be affected by the COVID-19 crisis. A survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) in August 2020 argues that Britons are healing their Brexit divisions under the pressures of the pandemic. The survey also shows cross-party support for an internationalist UK foreign policy, as the pandemic has reminded the public of the country’s dependence on its overseas partners. But this healing has come at the cost of trust in the Johnson government, whose handling of the crisis has badly dented its reputation, with Conservatives being particularly critical.
Importantly for the substance of UK foreign policy, the survey shows a marked worsening in public perceptions of the US and China, and an improvement in perceptions of Germany. While the US figures will most probably change following the election of Joe Biden, another survey shows that negative perceptions of China have spiked in the UK, from 55 per cent of respondents in 2019 to 74 per cent in the summer of 2020. For Johnson there is the additional consideration that over 30 per cent of Conservative voters blame China for the scale of the damage wrought by the pandemic, compared with single-digit percentages among supporters of other British political parties.
The current and future governments will need to consider the perspective of the younger generation of Britons when developing and implementing foreign policy.
COVID-19 has not dented the public’s desire to see the government be proactive in tackling climate change. In the recent ECFR survey, 62 per cent of respondents want stronger action to combat climate change, seeing parallels in the scale and impact of global warming and the pandemic, while only 9 per cent do not. This is a reminder that this and future governments will need to consider the perspective of the younger generation of Britons when developing and implementing foreign policy. Acutely aware of the risks from climate change, and embracing the social activism of the #MeToo movement and the desire to tackle structural injustices implicit in the Black Lives Matter movement, this next generation is more likely to hold the government to account over its statements about pursuing a values-based foreign policy. Young people will expect the political establishment to uphold the same commitment to environmental stewardship, social justice and good governance that it demands from multinationals and business leaders. The government will struggle to promote these principles domestically and then try to run a foreign policy that contradicts them.
It is hard to predict how these public perceptions will influence government policy. The combination of a public still divided over the impacts of Brexit, a significant loss of trust in politicians and the political system, and widespread popular caution about a more deregulatory UK trade policy could serve as constraints. The government’s promise to ‘level up’ the country socio-economically also creates the expectation that more resources will be focused at home rather than on foreign policy ambitions. And this all sets to one side the very real risk that the UK might break up at some point in the next five to 10 years, as Scottish and Irish nationalism feed off continuing post-Brexit and post-pandemic political turbulence.
So, the government’s licence to invest in strategic international goals will need to be earned by a successful performance at home. But now that the UK has left the EU but has been reminded by COVID-19 of the realities of interdependence and the benefits of international cooperation, there could be public support for a non-partisan international agenda that is seen to improve the country’s future well-being and security. Policymakers will also need to take into account some of the forward-looking aspirations of the UK’s younger generations, rather than tapping into nostalgic visions of Britain’s role in the world.
