PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 1, 2026International Theory0 citationsOpen Access

Brexit and the trust paradox of sovereigntist internationalism

View Full Paper
BMBenjamin MartillTWTobias Wille

Key Points

  • The paper investigates the tension between national control and international cooperation during Brexit negotiations.
  • Case study of Brexit negotiations under Theresa May's premiership (2016-2019)
  • Analysis of elite interviews with UK government officials
  • Examination of institutional designs and trust dynamics
  • UK government struggled to shift to looser institutional arrangements while maintaining trust with the EU.
  • The EU was unconvinced that the UK could generate sufficient trust without strict control measures.
  • Findings highlight contradictory preferences for institutional designs among governments.

Abstract

Abstract A growing number of governments are seeking to return control from supranational authorities to the state. Many of them wish to do so without sacrificing the benefits of deep international cooperation. But this desire to increase national control while maintaining cooperation – which we term ‘sovereigntist internationalism’ – is often frustrated in practice. We argue that this is due to a ‘trust paradox’ these governments face when their ideological commitments push them towards trust-based institutional arrangements while simultaneously rendering them less trusting and less trustworthy. We illustrate our argument with a case study of the Brexit negotiations during Theresa May’s premiership from 2016 to 2019. Drawing on elite interviews, we show how the UK government sought to transpose existing forms of economic cooperation into looser institutional arrangements but failed to convince the European Commission that enough trust could be generated to make the continuation of deep cooperation viable without strong control mechanisms. Our argument advances debates in International Relations (IR) by, first, explaining governments’ sometimes contradictory preferences for institutional designs; second, showing that different actors need different levels of trust to achieve similar levels of cooperation; and, third, improving our understanding of how populist actors view international institutions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Martill et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69cd7b575652765b073a9442https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971926100189
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper