A recent discussion on Britain's future economic and strategic direction drew a parallel between contemporary UK challenges and the philosophy of Charles de Gaulle, the former French president credited with modernizing postwar France. The comparison highlights calls for a revived form of British nationalism rooted in strong state leadership, economic modernization, and defence autonomy.
The idea was sparked during a talk titled “Britain is not broken,” aimed at countering pessimistic narratives about the country’s prospects. A 16-year-old student observed that the speaker’s arguments echoed a type of "British Gaullism," referencing de Gaulle’s approach of combining patriotism, strategic planning, and social contract commitments to elevate France’s global standing.
De Gaulle’s legacy included comprehensive economic modernization through strategic planning, establishment of a cradle-to-grave social welfare system, promotion of workplace participation, and development of an independent nuclear deterrent. He insisted France maintain sovereignty and refused to become subordinate to the United States, while supporting European integration as a confederation of states able to serve as a third geopolitical pole alongside the US and China.
Applying this framework to Britain, advocates argue that the country’s strengths lie in its innovative tech economy and defence technology companies. The UK ranks third globally in tech innovation, and has emerged as a leading contributor within NATO to Ukraine’s advanced defence tech efforts. Last week, Britain became the first nation granted access to Ukraine’s Avengers AI labs for developing drone swarms enhanced by artificial intelligence, a technology sought after by both the Pentagon and the Chinese military.
Critics suggest that Britain’s defence strategy should prioritize strengthening its tech base domestically rather than fixating on meeting arbitrary defence spending targets, such as the goal of exceeding 3% of GDP by the next parliament. Modern warfare, they note, increasingly demands capabilities for rapid system upgrades and functioning within a contested “grey zone” between peace and war, as described recently by the head of MI6. This requires retaining ownership of key defence firms rather than allowing sales to foreign entities, which has occurred under policies promoting the UK as “open for business.” For example, companies like Cobham, Ultra Electronics, and Meggitt have been sold off to US interests, raising concerns about sovereignty in critical sectors.
This approach is gaining intellectual and private-sector support. Recent attention has fallen on a book, Vassal State, which details the extensive US control over the UK economy and technology sectors. Prominent venture capitalist Saul Klein has cited the work while hosting the “Britain backing Britain” conference, backed by firms such as NatWest, M&G, and the British Business Bank. The event showcased investments in homegrown tech companies including Pragmatic Semiconductor and Open Cosmos.
Despite these efforts, less than 1% of the UK’s high-growth tech firms receive funding from British investors linked to the Mansion House agreement, a pledge to support domestic innovation. Only one major UK pension fund, Border to Coast, has invested in more than one such company, while foreign pension funds have been more active and profitable in backing British tech ventures.
Proponents urge a “home bias” in investment practices, reflecting a renewed civic patriotism akin to de Gaulle’s “certain idea” of France. They suggest that Britain’s Labour leader, Andy Burnham, who plans to unveil a 10-year economic strategy, could draw on these ideas to strengthen the country’s economic and strategic independence. However, they caution that ideological divides within Britain, such as debates over immigration on the political right, often overshadow discussions about safeguarding national industries and technology from foreign control.
Advocates argue that embracing a Gaullist-inspired patriotism, including a constructive role in European integration, could help Britain assert its hard and soft power internationally. Given the evolving geopolitical landscape, they assert that such a long-term approach will be essential to maintaining British autonomy and influence in the 21st century.