Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

I've just reached the point of total disgust with the Tories. There are invertebrate slimy things living at the bottom of scum-covered ponds with more empathy.

I think since Brexit the actual policies of the Tories have been quite defensible and their sins have consisted primarily of bad visuals.  I ask you to consider that you might have been triggered by Brexit.

I would say that this government is very little apart from visuals. There is a feeling of complete drift and very little from them apart from performative nonsense to energise their base (eg the ridiculous Rwanda plan that has cost at least £120m and has been deemed unlawful by the courts as expected). To be scrupulously fair the Windsor framework is an improvement as is the upcoming rejoining of the European horizon science collaboration programme. But the rest of it is bombast and drift.

[Sheilbh]

I would say that this government is very little apart from visuals. There is a feeling of complete drift and very little from them apart from performative nonsense to energise their base (eg the ridiculous Rwanda plan that has cost at least £120m and has been deemed unlawful by the courts as expected). To be scrupulously fair the Windsor framework is an improvement as is the upcoming rejoining of the European horizon science collaboration programme. But the rest of it is bombast and drift.

I agree on the Windsor Framework - although I think on Horizon that has always been in every propopsed post-Brexit deal. I think there's an argument the EU were in breach by not negotiating our membership, so I think it's a fairly minimal achievement.

On Rwanda I think the expectation is that the Supreme Court will allow the scheme to go ahead - but it's not clear. And as you way it has cost a lot of money and even on its own terms it's not achieved anything yet. From Rwanda's pov, nice money if you can get it

But I slightly wonder how much is performance. I think a lot about a Stephen Bush piece on this - I think there was similar in the Guardian. Basically that was a common view - and you often hear it on, say, the Rest is Politics - that this is all performance or Sunak just having to go along with hardliners in his party. Bush (and I think the Guardian piece) pointed out that all the evidence is that Sunak is actually possibly our most socially conservative PM since Thatcher and pretty economically dry as well - and it's just we read him as more liberal than he is because he's got a Tony Blair style and is from a minority.

[Valmy]

Rwanda plan

That seems like a pretty problematic name. Was the Khmer Rouge plan or the Srebrenica strategy also considered?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Continuing a trend that dates back to at least Obama, the American President seems to have a cold sentiment towards the Brits.

Reporting has come out today that Joe Biden is blocking Ben Wallace's candidacy for NATO Secretary General, in favor of Ursula von der Leyen.

Ursula has absolutely no business being anywhere near that role, so I am hopeful that that does not come to pass, but we will have to see.

[Tamas]

Is UVDL on some kind of an achievement hunt?  What does she have to do with NATO?

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Secretary General is typically always a former European politician of some sort, either the Prime Minister of one of the small countries or a Minister / Secretary of one of the larger ones. The SG isn't a military role.

[Legbiter]

She's probably best kept where she is currently is.

[Sheilbh]

I understand not backing Wallace as supporting him would involve spending a fair bit of diplomatic capital butting heads with much of Western Europe (including France and Germany) - even as a Brit, and someone who thinks Wallace has done and would do a good job, I'm not sure it's worth it.

Although the characteristics that apparently are desired in a new SecGen do rule out most candidates. Apparently ideally they want someone who has been at head of government level and from a country that meets its defence spending targets - which I think would basically narrow the field to British, French, Greek or Turkish ex-PMs

Having said that I think VDL would be a really bad shout. NATO is structurally pro-US, the EU isn't and she is very aligned with DC (where they really like her) on China, Ukraine and other issues - I'm not sure that'd necessarily be true of her successor. I suppose that may already be an issue as there's already rumours that the EPP might not back her for a second term. I think that'd be a shame because I think she's been an outstanding President of the Commission and probably the best since Delors, but there we are.

Lots of talk about maybe Frederiksen but the 2% issue is there and I'm not sure if you'd want to jump from just starting a second term to NATO?

Edit: For example Michel as President of the Council is significantly more open to China, still talks about doing the CAI etc.

[Grey Fox]

Around here, the pundits are always pushing Chrystia Freeland for the NATO job. Probably being blocked by Biden too, always need a reason for being wrong.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The reporting is Joe blocked Wallace because he is unhappy that he feels he has forced his hand on several matters relating to Ukraine weapons support.

VDL has too many issues though--she is from a country that I consider "untrustworthy" on NATO, similar to France in that regard. She also has supported policies at the EU designed with at least a fleeting dream of moving Europe away from NATO which isn't a good fit for a NATO SG.

The SG should come from a country that is a robust supporter of NATO across the board. Frederiksen is definitely a good choice. While I understand the negative optics of so many Nordics in a row, the Nordic NATO members all are largely very pro NATO politically. Now, the whole 2% thing is rough because so few members really meet it and basically all have serious problems.

Greece - Way too pro-Russian, along with all the troubles with Turkey
US - Violates the unwritten rule against the US having the SG (since we almost always have the Supreme Commander)
Baltics - I'm cool w/all these countries and they all meet the spending requirement, but I think there's political issues--seen as too far on the periphery of Europe, seen as possibly too antagonistic to Russia as a chocie
Poland - I'm generally cool with Poland as an option, but I think the politics of their governing coalition mean any of their current politicians would be political non-starters
UK - Oddly enough I think the UK checks a lot of the right boxes, doesn't have most of the negatives I have listed of the other countries.

[Richard Hakluyt]

UK political division does not extend to NATO, which I think is important. One thing that will not change after the next election is support for the armed forces, for NATO and for Ukraine. It is nice to at least have consensus on this.

[Sheilbh]

UK political division does not extend to NATO, which I think is important. One thing that will not change after the next election is support for the armed forces, for NATO and for Ukraine. It is nice to at least have consensus on this.

Yes - although even there that was forced on Corbyn. His long-standing views are for withdrawal from NATO (and the EU) and unilateral disarmament, which he was forced to change by party conference.

But mainstream Labour are back in charge now and one of the positives is, as you say, support for our defence responsibilities as an ally and support for Ukraine. I'm glad Zelenskiy has welcomed Starmer etc and there's no gap between the government and opposition on this. Also worth noting that Lammy is very close to the Democrats and his number one job will be to get Starmer a meeting with Biden, but again it's a wing of Labour that are broadly very comfortable with the Democrats at least.

UK - Oddly enough I think the UK checks a lot of the right boxes, doesn't have most of the negatives I have listed of the other countries.

I think it's too soon after Brexit for France, Germany and other (Western) European countries to have the UK taking a lead position on European defence.

Of course that partly reflects the uncomfortable reality (and the US is the vast part of this) that over 80% of NATO defence spending is by non-EU member states.

If I were in Biden's team I'd think it's a fight not worth having.

The SG should come from a country that is a robust supporter of NATO across the board. Frederiksen is definitely a good choice. While I understand the negative optics of so many Nordics in a row, the Nordic NATO members all are largely very pro NATO politically. Now, the whole 2% thing is rough because so few members really meet it and basically all have serious problems.

I don't worry so much as the Nordics but I do worry about that run of smaller member - twenty years basically since Robertson of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway (who are very committed allies). But I think you need to balance that with some of the big countries too - and VDL would tick that box (although she's not from the same political family as the German government so you may lose the benefit).

I think it can also be a problem with the EU institutions that you default to a leader from the Benelux because they're good at coalition building, but you won't necessarily get much done because they're not tied into a key player.

Edit:

Around here, the pundits are always pushing Chrystia Freeland for the NATO job. Probably being blocked by Biden too, always need a reason for being wrong.

Isn't she finance minister?

Fully get that the financial side of things and sanctions have been an important part of the response to Russia but that's not really what NATO's about - I'd say you probably need to have been head of government, foreign minister or defence minister to be a credible candidate.

Although maybe for the IMF or World Bank (not sure which one Canada would be eligible for)? Or indeed a UN role - although I imagine Canada would be controversial for Russia or China.

[Barrister]

Around here, the pundits are always pushing Chrystia Freeland for the NATO job. Probably being blocked by Biden too, always need a reason for being wrong.

But as mentioned, even though not explicitly stated in the rules, the NATO SG has always been a European.

Just like the Supreme Allied Commander Europe has always been an American.

[Grey Fox]

Around here, the pundits are always pushing Chrystia Freeland for the NATO job. Probably being blocked by Biden too, always need a reason for being wrong.

But as mentioned, even though not explicitly stated in the rules, the NATO SG has always been a European.

Just like the Supreme Allied Commander Europe has always been an American.

Yeah and that's fine. I'm rolling my eyes at the pundits. Like those saying Wallace is blocked by Biden, those saying Freeland in contention but blocked are a) wrong b) creating outrage for clicks.

[Barrister]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-05/shift-in-balance-of-arms-in-ukraine-underscored-by-fresh-data

Interesting article - it suggests that since the start of the war, Russia has lost military hardware, while Ukraine has gained it - to the point that Ukraine now has more tanks than Russia, and the difference in artillery and MLRS has shrank.