Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[alfred russel]

I assume that it is unlikely Boris will be out by the end of August if he sticks around until a new leader is chosen?

It's a bit up in the air - the new 1922 Committee (elected on Monday) will decide the schedule/timing. From the reports though they want to move quickly so at least two rounds of MPs votes by the end of next week. They'll probably want the MPs round finished before the summer recess (21 July) and they may do it quicker.

After that it's likely that the membership round between the final two will be 6-8 weeks.

That assumes Johnson stays in place though. There are still stories dropping, he's appointed some genuinely extaordinary ministers today (who'll get a lovely bonus when they're fired). Plus given the "snake" briefing when he fired Gove and the anti-Sunak stuff it's quite possible the Tories decide he's hurting them, in which case they may force him out even earlier - especially as Dominic Raab has announced he isn't running for leader so is a plausibe temporary PM. They won't want to because it's not a great look, but it depends on how the politics is for the Tories.

I'm thinking about cashing out my bets...that timing seems unlikely to be over during august...I'm about $100 underwater now.

[Sheilbh]

Fair but Tory leadership elections are a little unpredictable (and I think they want this one done quick). They adopted the system in 2001. Since then:
2001 - 3 months
2005 - 2 months
2016 - 2 weeks (everyone's campaign imploded so May was the last man standing)
2019 - 6/7 weeks

[Jacob]

Fair but Tory leadership elections are a little unpredictable (and I think they want this one done quick). They adopted the system in 2001. Since then:
2001 - 3 months
2005 - 2 months
2016 - 2 weeks (everyone's campaign imploded so May was the last man standing)
2019 - 6/7 weeks

May was the last man standing? Could've fooled me.

[Sheilbh]

Ooops

[Jacob]

Ooops

    

[The Minsky Moment]

I think so far there have been zero Brexit consequences in foreign policy and I think that's probably likely to continue.

I assume that for this purpose you are not treating the Irish issue as a foreign policy matter.

[Sheilbh]

I assume that for this purpose you are not treating the Irish issue as a foreign policy matter.

Fair although I don't think any consequences have actually coalesced, not least because not much has actually happened. Grace periods were unilaterally extended - but both sides now accept that those checks aren't necessary/won't be required - and draft legislation has been published which I suspect will get withdrawn.

I think the consequences of the Protocol are overwhelmingly issues in Northern Ireland, which is still part of the UK, and erecting a semi-international trade barrier within a country's territory. It may have a foreign policy solution too - I've said before but I really hope the US appoints an envoy again. I also think a change in government will help, but I'm not sure anyone in Westminster will have credibility and trust with unionists - building that is going to be a huge challenge.

According to Micheal Martin and the UUP, everyone knows what the landing zone will look like, it is stuff that everyone has already discussed and from what I've read it's basically exactly what Enda Kenny and his team were pushing for in 2016. I suspect, sadly, that it's another Sunningdale for slow learners issue.

[Sheilbh]

Kemi Badenoch has launched a campaign with a piece in the Times - interesting because she's seen as a rising star who resigned with other highly rated junior ministers (she's actually the same age as Sunak - just never been in a senior role).

I wonder if she's got their support for a leadership bid as well. A pitch to skip a generation like Cameron in 2005 (although while he was a moderniser, she's a bit of a culture warrior - or at least that's how I know her) In any event a pitch for a cabinet job.

Edit: Just seen in the Guardian a backbencher who thinks there could be 15 candidates - which is a lot and a number of them will be mad. I expect they'll whittle it down to 4-5 by the end of next week, but it'll still be very busy. Another noted that given the people thinking of running it's likely to be a very nasty, divisive campaign with lots of hostile briefing against each other. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

[Zanza]

Only in your narrow view where most relations with foreign states are not foreign policy somehow.

Not only my view - as I say I've seen people from RUSI, which is probably the most establishment and prominent foreign policy thinktank in the UK, make the same point.

If you declare the international relation with the most influential political institution of your home continent as out of scope of foreign policy then I guess you could say that Boris Johnson and his Brexit had no impact on foreign policy. 

[Sheilbh]

Ben Wallace is not running. It matters I think he would win, but also striking because I think he's the first Tory MP I've seen who says he isn't going for it

"I am very grateful to all my parliamentary colleagues and wider members who have pledged support.  It has not been an easy choice to make, but my focus is on my current job and keeping this great country safe."

It's very early and this could be totally wrong - but it feels like things are going Sunak's way at the minute.

[Sheilbh]

If you declare the international relation with the most influential political institution of your home continent as out of scope of foreign policy then I guess you could say that Boris Johnson and his Brexit had no impact on foreign policy. 

The EU is really influential - but it is not yet a foreign policy actor. It's nowhere near that. It's what we've talked about the EU's struggle to even have policy and influence in its neighbourhood. But again - what are the consequences? I can't think of a single one.

In part that's possibly because the British were members and unlike Germany or France, the UK (under all parties) had no real aspiration to see the EU develop foreign policy muscle or to use the EU for its foreign policy. I think the better argument is maybe a little ironic, that the foreign policy consequence of Brexit is likely to be that without the UK as a member the EU is more likely to develop in such a way that the UK needs to have a foreign policy towards the it.

I think there's been steps towards that in response to Ukraine. And I think the EU institutions and leadership (especially VDL - I can't stand Michel) have been really excellent - especially in the areas where there's clear EU competency like trade. As Luuk van Middelaar has written the EU project tends to advance through crisis so this may be one where there is a leap forward.

The only reason I'm unsure of that is that I think the EU leadership has a good policy/approach but there is division among member states on that core foreign policy question of risk between Nordic and CEE countries who I think feel an existential threat from Russia and the rest of Europe who don't - they feel outrage, they want to help but it's not felt or perceived as existential (I think the EU leadership view it as existential - that it's an attack on Europe and their project, and I think they're right).

There's the possibility that Ukraine is a crisis that provokes a leap forward in EU capacity in this area, it seems equally possible that Poland and others take on the role of the UK and tries to block any move towards more EU foreign policy, because they think they are more aligned with the US (and also the UK, Canada and NATO more generally). But I think that's the wider point about the EU in general - I do buy into the "it's a state in formation" theory. But I don't think there's anything inevitable about that, there are many contingencies and choices on the way.

[Sheilbh]

As an aside looking at the endorsements coming in - and it's very, very early and lots can happen - but I have a vision of a Sunak v Braverman final two

Edit: Also really not sure on the Truss, Zahawi, Javid, Hunt, Mordaunt strategy of waiting before announcing their running. The knock-out rounds will be over in a week or two and it feels like the early announcers have a chance to build up a bit of momentum. I assume they all have a bank of supporters ready to go once they launch but interesting to see people jumping early.

While I think the Tory party has issues with Islamophobia especially and doesn't like a structural/systemic analysis of race - I think it is progress and striking how diverse the field is. Apologies for the Guido chart but I think all of these are likely to get into the first round at least and in a field of about ten there's only 2-3 middle aged white men (I'm not sure Grant Shapps has the votes):


I've not done the math so I don't know if this is right but someone pointed out that there are more women and minority candidates in this leadership election than have ever stood for the Labour leadership (and Labour members have a really bad habit of saying they'd love to vote for a woman but not enough run, or the wrong ones run and, reluctantly, they must go with the middle aged white man). 

But I think there are relatively few countries in the Western world where the leadership field for even the mainstream right party is that diverse - maybe Canada. The other side is it does also reflect voting trends (which may shift) in terms of which communities are showing signs of becoming more receptive to the Tories - it is a few at the top but reflects a deeper trend.

Edit: Also apparently growing concerns on the right of the party that they're going to split the vote and end up with two candidate more from the one nation wing. Similarly rumours that Sunak is trying to convince Tugendhat to come behind him (possibly in exchange for the Foreign Secretary job) - if Sunak had Tugendhat at the FCDO and Wallace at the MoD that would largely address half of my concerns about him.

[Josquius]

I'm very suspect of the tories and their policy of parachuting in minorities that otherwise tick acceptable boxes to ultra white safe seats in order to win votes away from those seats.

I hope it isn't sunak. Seems too much of a good match up vs starmer. We need another blundering buffoon. Though I guess the dodgy financial decisions of recent years do provide some valuable ammo

[Sheilbh]

I'm very suspect of the tories and their policy of parachuting in minorities that otherwise tick acceptable boxes to ultra white safe seats in order to win votes away from those seats.

Maybe - Labour are more diverse in their MPs and historically at the cabinet level. They're not doing great at the minute in terms of front-line roles - I can only think of Lammy and Nandy. And I'm more suspicious of Labour's repeated failure in this area and even in just picking a woman leader.

It isn't everything, it doesn't mean there isn't systemic and structural racism in Britain (and many of those candidates would deny those terms) - but it is progress and it has been lacking in Labour in a way that's really disappointing. Ultimately it is always down to the local party. All parties use whatever control they have to promote loyal, ideologically aligned activists. Labour have used all-women shortlists and are considering all-BAME shortlists, which I think have been valuable in the past - I think the issue in Labour is actually more about promotion and internal elections not getting candidates. The Tories haven't. There's been the A-list but their approach has basically been to ensure more representation on the shortlist for the local party - and local parties have not had much issue choosing women or minority candidates.

Sunder Katwala's been tweeting a lot this morning about "imputed prejudice" but it's interesting because it's something minority candidates have complained is a big issue in Labour: "That is to say, selectors who are mainly white, are taking the view that whilst they are not racist, and do not discriminate against black and Asian candidates, their fear is - entirely unfounded by the way - that voters will discriminate on that basis, and for those reasons, selectors play safe and shy away from adopting black and Asian candidates, particularly in marginal seats." Of course the outcome of that sort of prejudice is that black and Asian candidates are rejected on the basis of race, even if the people involved aren't doing it for a racist reason.

Edit: I'd add that I think the kind of seats where Labour puts up minority candidates also has an impact ideologically - which may be why they're underrepresented at the leadership level.

[Josquius]

The way labour does it however strikes me as far more organic. Their minority MPs come from and represent seats with large minority populations; the way things are meant to be.

The only disadvantage I see with this is minority heavy areas tend to be poorer so there's less of a role model sort of thing there, it's not the rich oxbridge educated minority guy but just one of the crowd, which for a lot of people in some minority groups will actually be a negative thing. But I don't think this is huge as its counterbalanced by those who recognise the colour of their skin may be what it is but their lives were totally alien.

I do think there's a problem in labour with the way local parties are organised and sub organised into a thousand petty fiefdoms which can be quite indimidating to anyone who isn't part of the middle aged group of men who have been there forever.