From destination to partner: UK–Europe collaboration after 2026

On 20 January 2026, the UK Government released the International Education Strategy 2026.  As a UK higher education practitioner working closely with European partners, I read this strategy not simply as a policy document, but as a signal, a subtle yet meaningful recalibration of how the UK now seeks to position itself within global and, crucially, European higher education. 

For European partners, the message is clear: the UK is no longer framing internationalisation primarily through inbound student numbers, but through long-term partnerships, transnational education (TNE), research collaboration, and shared system-building. 

A strategic shift: from recruitment to relationship 

One of the most striking changes from the UK’s 2019 International Education Strategy is the removal of a fixed international student recruitment target. The earlier ambition of hosting 600,000 international students annually by 2030 has been replaced with language around sustainable recruitment, quality, and diversification. 

For European institutions, this signals a less zero-sum approach. The UK is no longer positioning itself solely as a destination competing for mobile European students, but increasingly as a partner operating across borders, through joint provision, co-designed programmes, and shared delivery models.  This shift aligns more closely with European internationalisation norms, where cooperation, reciprocity, and system-level collaboration have long been emphasised. 

Re-engagement with European mobility and collaboration 

The strategy sits alongside the UK’s planned re-association with Erasmus+ from 2027, while retaining the Turing Scheme. Together, these mechanisms point towards a dual mobility architecture: one that supports both European exchange and global outward mobility. 

For European higher education institutions, this opens renewed space for: 

• More balanced staff and student exchanges  

• European joint degrees and micro-credentials  

• Collaborative curriculum development 

• Blended mobility and short-term formats 

Crucially, mobility is framed not only as student movement, but as people-to-people diplomacy, reinforcing shared values, academic cultures, and long-term trust. 

Transnational education as a collaborative platform 

A central pillar of the 2026 strategy is the expansion of transnational education. While often interpreted as an export agenda, the strategy explicitly emphasises quality assurance, institutional capacity building, and mutual benefit. 

For European partners, TNE need not be understood as UK "expansion", but as: 

• Co-delivered programmes in third countries  

• Joint hubs or regional centres 

• Shared digital and hybrid provision  

• Collaborative responses to skills and workforce needs 

This creates opportunities for triangular partnerships: UK – EU - Global South, particularly in areas such as sustainability, digital transformation, health, and responsible management education. 

Implications for European internationalisation strategies 

The UK’s repositioning invites European institutions to rethink their engagement with UK partners in three ways: 

1. From exchange to co-creation — moving beyond bilateral mobility to shared programme ownership. 

2. From competition to complementarity — recognising distinct but aligned strengths. 

3. From short-term projects to long-term systems partnerships — particularly in research, skills, and education development. 

Conclusion: a cautiously optimistic moment 

From a UK practitioner’s perspective, the International Education Strategy 2026 represents an important moment of recalibration in the UK–European higher education relationship. This blog reflects first-hand, early observations of a strategy that appears more optimistic, more partnership-oriented, and more closely aligned with European internationalisation traditions than previous iterations. 

However, these signals remain aspirational rather than proven. Much will depend on how European institutions interpret and respond to this reframed UK posture, whether it is deemed as a genuine invitation to co-creation, or simply a repackaging of competitive internationalisation in collaborative language. 

As implementation unfolds, the real test will lie not in policy statements, but in practice: in the design of partnerships, the distribution of risk and reward, and the extent to which reciprocity and trust are meaningfully embedded. Only through sustained engagement will it become clear whether this strategy marks a lasting shift or merely a rhetorical reset in UK–European collaboration.