It’s time for the British political fringe to get serious on foreign policy
Polling is clear, the centre is falling out of British politics. Now that marginal parties look like serious contenders in the next election, it is time they articulate their vision for the country’s global role.
The historical alternation between Labour and Conservative governments appears increasingly fragile. As parties of government, they are expected to explain to the public what they are doing, or would do, in foreign affairs. Ahead of last year's elections, both major parties, as well as the Liberal Democrats, set forward coherent, detailed agendas for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, covering everything from AUKUS to the Falkland Islands. Despite having little prospect of forming a government, the Liberal Democrats issued a 59-page policy paper. It is a laudable principle: the electorate deserves to know how parties would wield political power.
As Reform UK and the Greens make dramatic entrances into frontline politics, we must ensure that the same demands are made of them.
Nigel Farage, the most effective disruptor of Britain’s foreign affairs in recent history, led the charge for Britain to leave the EU in 2016. He then became a proponent of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, pushing for an increasingly isolationist nationalism. Under his leadership, Reform UK is now leading the polls by a wide margin and is a serious contender in the next UK election. Despite this, we are left to piece together the party’s proposed foreign policy from a bare-bones manifesto and scattered media comments.
A recent Chatham House report, entitled Does Reform UK have a foreign policy? aggregated the party’s statements on international affairs. Their most visible policy is mass deportations of refugees, which would only be possible via a withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights (which prevents deportations where the deportee may face a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) and signing return agreements with governments such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, two of the countries from which refugees most commonly originate. There has not been any clarification on how this would work in practice, or what Reform would offer those governments in exchange.
On other issues, there is even less information; because their manifesto lacks a foreign policy section, there is no official stance on Ukraine, Palestine, China, or Russia. The page dedicated to defence promises to raise spending to 3% of GDP, and recruit 30,000 new full-time individuals to the army; no mention is made of the navy or RAF.
These recruits would allegedly ‘ensure our lead role in NATO’, an organisation Farage once claimed, along with the EU, had provoked the war in Ukraine. Farage has said he admires Putin “as an operator,” and with the former Welsh Reform leader sentenced for taking Russian bribes, there are certainly questions about the party’s global alignment.
NATO scepticism is a tendency shared by the Green Party. While their official position is that they would ‘work within NATO’, their leader, Zack Polanski, has advocated leaving the alliance, recently clarifying that he doesn’t believe we should do so ‘immediately’.
Polanski is steering the Green Party through a surge in support, looking set to overtake Labour in the polls. The party has struck a chord with left-wing voters who feel abandoned by the Parliamentary Labour Party. Yet their manifesto on foreign policy does not portray an organisation ready to assume power on the global stage.
Their position regarding Israel and Palestine, not updated to reflect the nominal ceasefire, aligns with its pro-Palestinian membership (who voted to recognise Israel as an apartheid state committing genocide) while still condemning Hamas. It supports ‘A durable political solution that ensures security and equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians,’ stopping short of a commitment to either a one or two-state solution.
On a few points, the Greens are more concrete. They propose increasing international aid to 1% of gross national income and climate finance for the Global South to 1.5% by 2033, alongside the immediate dismantling of Britain’s nuclear arsenal. These positions represent radical departures from current policy but are nonetheless clear, actionable commitments that appeal to voters to the left of Labour.
Other pledges, such as rejoining the EU ‘as soon as the political conditions are right’ or calls for ‘a greater focus on global peacebuilding’, are more representative of the party’s reliance on aspirational but vague language, offering little clarity and making accountability difficult.
Conclusion
Britain is an island only in the geographic sense. Its domestic challenges are embedded in global dynamics and cannot be resolved in isolation. In times of instability, foreign policy becomes more, not less, important. Any serious political party therefore does voters a disservice if it offers a manifesto without a realistic account of Britain’s role in the world.
The issues British voters prioritise most are immigration and asylum, the economy, health, and defence and security, which are all shaped by how the UK engages internationally. As Reform UK and the Greens move into the political mainstream, their failure to articulate clear and credible foreign policy positions exposes a lack of readiness to govern. If these parties seek power, they must articulate coherent visions of Britain’s global role and accept the scrutiny that comes with serious contention.
Edward Martin, MA Middle Eastern Studies and Arabic - SOAS, and is the editorial assistant at GINGKO.
Cover Image Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons