Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

What, no excited post from Shelf on the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

[HVC]

What'd they do wrong?

[Sheilbh]

What'd they do wrong?

He had to go - as I think his position was untenable.

But I also can't help but think there is a bit of accountability here that's missing from other walks of life. The CofE did report this to the police in 2013 - the criticism of Welby and (some) others was that they did not follow up. He was told that the police had been informed and it was being pursued and basically accepted that.

I think the police have questions to answer about why they basically didn't seem to act on those reports - but also according to the report the police advised Welby not to meet with survivors.

He is responsible, he's at the top and he should go but in terms of what he personally did wrong, I don't think much. and I think it would be helpful to see a similar approach with, say, ministers, police chiefs etc

Justin Welby to quit as archbishop of Canterbury over handling of abuse scandal
Leader of Church of England had faced pressure since damning report on cover-up of John Smyth's abuse
Emine Sinmaz, Harriet Sherwood and Sally Weale
Tue 12 Nov 2024 14.24 GMT

The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is to step down amid intense pressure over his handling of one of the church's worst abuse scandals, he announced today.

The decision came after mounting demands from victims and members of the clergy for Welby to quit.

Pressure on him had been intensifying since the publication last week of a damning report on the Church of England's cover-up of abuse by John Smyth in the UK in the late 1970s and early 80s, and later in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

About 130 boys are believed to have been victims of Smyth, a powerful barrister who died in 2018.

The independent Makin review into the abuse concluded Smyth could have been brought to justice had the archbishop formally reported it to police a decade ago.

Welby's announcement came hours after Keir Starmer, the prime minister, refused to publicly back him. A petition started by three members of the General Synod – the church's parliament – had amassed more than 13,000 signatures calling for the archbishop to quit.

In a statement posted on social media, Welby, who is the spiritual leader of 85 million Anglicans worldwide, said: "Having sought the gracious permission of His Majesty the king, I have decided to resign as archbishop of Canterbury.

"The Makin review has exposed the long-maintained conspiracy of silence about the heinous abuses of John Smyth. When I was informed in 2013 and told that police had been notified, I believed wrongly that an appropriate resolution would follow.

"It is very clear that I must take personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatising period between 2013 and 2024."

The king approved the resignation on Tuesday morning.

Welby said the exact timing of his departure was yet to be confirmed, adding: "I hope this decision makes clear how seriously the Church of England understands the need for change and our profound commitment to creating a safer church. As I step down I do so in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse.

"The last few days have renewed my long-felt and profound sense of shame at the historic safeguarding failures of the Church of England. For nearly 12 years I have struggled to introduce improvements. It is for others to judge what has been done.

"In the meantime, I will follow through on my commitment to meet victims. I will delegate all my other current responsibilities for safeguarding until the necessary risk assessment process is complete."

Welby said last week he had considered resigning over his "shameful" decision not to act on reports of abuse by Smyth when he was informed of them in 2013.

But Lambeth Palace had said in a statement on Monday that Welby had "apologised profoundly both for his own failures and omissions, and for the wickedness, concealment and abuse by the church more widely", and did not intend to resign.

Starmer is not believed to have spoken to Welby before he announced his resignation but Downing Street said the prime minister "respects the decision".

Welby, who had public roles at the funeral of the late Queen and the coronation of King Charles, will have consulted his team of close and trusted advisers on whether or not to quit.

Key among them will have been Stephen Cottrell, the archbishop of York, whose judgment is widely respected. Welby's personal chaplain, Tosin Oladipo, will have offered spiritual guidance.

The views of his wife, Caroline, will also have been critical in his decision-making process, it is believed.

Cottrell said on Tuesday that it was "the right and honourable thing" for Welby to have "decided to take his share of responsibility for the failures identified by the Makin review".

The bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, said the move provided "the urgent impetus we need to change the face of safeguarding".

But Andrew Graystone, author of Bleeding for Jesus, a book about Smyth's abuse, said the church needed "a wholesale change of culture at the top of the organisation" with other clergy taking responsibility for failing to act.

He said: "At least 11 bishops knew about John Smyth's abuse, but failed to stop him. In addition there were literally scores of rank and file church leaders and members who stood by, feeling it was someone else's job to act. This is not about the incompetence of one man. It is a deep-seated cultural issue about the privilege in the church."

Alan Collins, a partner in the sex abuse team at the law firm Hugh James, who represents a number of Smyth's victims, said Welby's resignation was a side issue. He said: "The spotlight must be on how the Church of England failed its victims so dreadfully for over 40 years, and the immediate priority is the Church of England addressing the needs of its victims."

Welby had faced calls to resign from Smyth's victims, members of the General Synod and Helen-Ann Hartley, the bishop of Newcastle, who said his position was untenable.

Smyth sadistically abused private schoolboys who attended evangelical Christian holiday camps in the late 1970s and early 80s. Across five decades, he is said to have subjected as many as 130 boys and young men in the UK and Africa to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks, permanently marking their lives.

When the abuse was discovered, Smyth was allowed to move abroad with the full knowledge of church officials, where he continued to act with impunity.

He died aged 77 in Cape Town in 2018 while under investigation by Hampshire constabulary, and was "never brought to justice for the abuse", the Makin review said.

Welby volunteered at the holiday camps in the 1970s but has denied any knowledge of concerns about Smyth. However, the report said this was "unlikely".

It added: "[Welby] may not have known of the extreme seriousness of the abuse, but it is most probable that he would have had at least a level of knowledge that John Smyth was of some concern ... It is not possible to establish whether Welby knew of the severity of the abuses in the UK prior to 2013."

[HVC]

The problem with him stepping down, without having done anything personally wrong, is that the next guy down the chain holds just as much responsibility, don't they? They know what he knew.

But I guess there's no right answer, and symbolically he has to pay.

[Admiral Yi]

No, the bit that says the right to claim asylum is a human right and signatories of the convention guarantee this right, which says that people have the right to claim in any of those signatories.

https://www.asileproject.eu/the-right-to-choose-country-of-asylum-the-1951-convention-and-the-eus-temporary-protection-directive/

That international law on refugees is outdated and in need of reform is a very valid argument to make. Though that countries should just unilaterally decide to go against it and stop accepting refugees is not.

We were debating whether the UN Convention grants the right to choose your destination and you give me a link explaining why Ukrainian refugees can move anywhere they want in the Schengen zone because of the Schengen treaty. 

There really isn't a big gulf though.
As you say there's nothing stopping someone being poor AND oppressed by the state.

Its pretty inarguable that having fled the government hit squads you might feel safer in one country where you've family who understand the ins and outs and can look after you, than in another where you'll be basically a prisoner, only with less torture than home, and could be sent back at any moment.
Its also a reality that countries which are richer also tend to better follow the rule of law, have press freedom, LGBT rights, etc... and other things that might make someone need to become a refugee. Again, can't really blame genuine refugees for making the treck to Europe.

You could also go on to defining how much oppression is enough. What about those folks in the USSR who weren't disappeared but were forbidden from practicing their professional roles and relegated to being cleaners?
None of this is a simple black and white situation. Everything in a person's life is interlinked.
Its precisely that it is a messy and complex situation which allows pure economic scammers to try and pass themselves off as refugees. Contrary to what the nutters of the world say nobody serious actually wants total open borders for anyone. They just want the law followed and under this its quite a complex matter to tell apart the real refugees and those pretending.

You keep substituting "safe" for "well founded fear of persecution."  They have different meanings.

[Gups]

Disagree strongly Shelf. He wasn't interested, showed a lack of curiosity, didn't follow through. This happened in the organisation that he was head of. 

Something that serious, you expect regular discussions with the police, you should have a review of your own procedures, your own investigation as to how this happened. Not just shrug your shoulders and say, not my problem any more.

[Josquius]

We were debating whether the UN Convention grants the right to choose your destination and you give me a link explaining why Ukrainian refugees can move anywhere they want in the Schengen zone because of the Schengen treaty. 

It discusses Ukrainian refugees as that was a group at the top of the news a few years ago
In the very url of the link it refers to the UN convention....that's a pretty prominent part of what it discusses.

You keep substituting "safe" for "well founded fear of persecution."  They have different meanings.

If you're going into picking over words some legal experts pick up on the word "enjoy" being frequently used in the text of the 51 convention to underline that the refugees absolutely do have choice and shouldn't just be locked away in camps.

Quickly ctrl+f'ing the text I'm not seeing "well founded fear of persecution" popping up often enough to say its the one term. Quite a few different phrasings of the situation pop up. Again though the same would apply here. Define persecution. Obviously if the government regularly tortures you that's pretty clear cut, but if they hinder your career opportunities but otherwise let you live normally?...

[Sheilbh]

Disagree strongly Shelf. He wasn't interested, showed a lack of curiosity, didn't follow through. This happened in the organisation that he was head of. 

Something that serious, you expect regular discussions with the police, you should have a review of your own procedures, your own investigation as to how this happened. Not just shrug your shoulders and say, not my problem any more.

Fair point - and as I say I think he needed to step down because he is accountable as the head of the organisation.

But he was being told by people below that this was happening and being handled by appropriate teams. He also basically followed whatever the safeguarding teams or police told him so, for example, was advised by the police not to meet with survivors as it could interfere with their investigations. His personal failure was in thinking that the safeguarding teams in the CofE had given him correct information and were handling it.

That wasn't happening and I think it's a fair point that he should have been demanding regular updates and meeting with the police etc. It's right he steps down as the head of the organisation because he is accountable and responsible for it - but I also think it should be raising questions about the police who didn't pursue it very vigorously (this was in the middle of historic child sexual abuse allegations so it may have just not been a priority v the world of celebrity and politics) and others in the organisation who were basically reporting up that it was being handled.

[Admiral Yi]

It discusses Ukrainian refugees as that was a group at the top of the news a few years ago
In the very url of the link it refers to the UN convention....that's a pretty prominent part of what it discusses.

My apologies.  I didn't read far enough.  That was lazy.

So here's what I'm thinking is the relevant text:

"The 1951 Convention does not require the right to seek asylum to be used in a specific country. Moreno-Lax suggests that, as the conception of a right inherently consists of the negative right not to use it and a degree of freedom of choice as to how to use it, it naturally follows that an asylum seeker cannot be forced to exercise their right to seek asylum in a particular country."

First problem with this is there are rights for which we limit freedom of choice as to how to use it.  The US Constitution guarantees the right to travel between states.  Sovereign citizens claim this means they don't have to have a driver's license nor register their cars.  Everyone else says they do.

Second is even if true, it doesn't negate my argument.  No one is compelling anyone to do anything.  Signatories are obligated to provide a hearing to determine if the claimant is fleeing well founded fears of persecution.  A claimant crossing the Channel is prima facie not fleeing well founded fears of persecution.  The grounds for their claim have been eliminated.

If you're going into picking over words some legal experts pick up on the word "enjoy" being frequently used in the text of the 51 convention to underline that the refugees absolutely do have choice and shouldn't just be locked away in camps.

Quickly ctrl+f'ing the text I'm not seeing "well founded fear of persecution" popping up often enough to say its the one term. Quite a few different phrasings of the situation pop up. Again though the same would apply here. Define persecution. Obviously if the government regularly tortures you that's pretty clear cut, but if they hinder your career opportunities but otherwise let you live normally?...

If you've found text in the Convention that a reasonable person would interpret as signatories have an obligation to grant asylum to those fleeing a well founded fear of unhappiness, by all means please do share it with me.

My belief is the signatories were motivated to create this treaty by the fact that Jews fleeing Germany were often blocked from entering safe haven countries.  We totally fucked that up, let's do it right next time. Thus persecution to me is something like what the Jews faced. 

Yes, it is a term of art, and can mean almost anything you want it to.  However I believe my interpretation is closer to the text of the treaty than your interpretation.

[Sheilbh]

I return to the bat shed.

Apparently the bats don't live in the forest HS2 (and the shed) is going through. They live in other nearby forests. This is about protecting the bats in case they forage in those woods.

It is also £100million on a community of about 300 bats (1% of the nationwide population of that species). As IPPR North have calculated in their North-Bat Divide work, that means we are spending about £4,500 on a per bat basis. Which is more than we spend per person on public transport in London (about £3,500) or the North (about £1,000)

Truly it is just a mystery we'll never be able to solve why productivity is so low in this country...

[Syt]

I return to the bat shed.

Better than returning to the shat bed.

[Tamas]

I return to the bat shed.

Apparently the bats don't live in the forest HS2 (and the shed) is going through. They live in other nearby forests. This is about protecting the bats in case they forage in those woods.

It is also £100million on a community of about 300 bats (1% of the nationwide population of that species). As IPPR North have calculated in their North-Bat Divide work, that means we are spending about £4,500 on a per bat basis. Which is more than we spend per person on public transport in London (about £3,500) or the North (about £1,000)

Truly it is just a mystery we'll never be able to solve why productivity is so low in this country...

I am willing to believe this insanity came to be because this is England and nobody wanted to risk their career by making a stand for the sane option of risking a tiny portion of that 1% of bat population in the interest of this project.

But if this was in Hungary (there are examples like a giant viaduct compensating for some gently rolling hills for a motorway or tunnels cutting through similar non-issue hills because of reasons) I'd be certain the root cause was corruption.

[Josquius]

"The 1951 Convention does not require the right to seek asylum to be used in a specific country. Moreno-Lax suggests that, as the conception of a right inherently consists of the negative right not to use it and a degree of freedom of choice as to how to use it, it naturally follows that an asylum seeker cannot be forced to exercise their right to seek asylum in a particular country."

First problem with this is there are rights for which we limit freedom of choice as to how to use it.  The US Constitution guarantees the right to travel between states.  Sovereign citizens claim this means they don't have to have a driver's license nor register their cars.  Everyone else says they do.

I'm not sure how the sovereign citizen comparison works here.
A closer analogy there would be the way refugees aren't allowed to board a plane to the UK (or wherever) and must sneak in illegally.
You have the full right as an American to travel from Maine to California. You need to have a drivers license, tickets for transport, or whatever to actually do this in practice. But the mere right to do it is not in question.
Similarly refugees can't just use regular transport means to get to the UK. There's nothing inherently illegal in the UK making illegal entry the only way for them to get here. Exploiting a loop hole whilst obeying the letter I'd say.
But it does mean when they make it to the UK against all the odds they absolutely do have the right to claim asylum.

Second is even if true, it doesn't negate my argument.  No one is compelling anyone to do anything.  Signatories are obligated to provide a hearing to determine if the claimant is fleeing well founded fears of persecution.  A claimant crossing the Channel is prima facie not fleeing well founded fears of persecution.  The grounds for their claim have been eliminated

They are though.
Just because you've put some distance between you and the immortal snail it doesn't mean its not still coming for you.
They're still fleeing persecution in their home country no matter where they might have passed through in the meantime.
This only changes when they've actually claimed in other countries before hand. If they're an accepted refugee in France but then they show up in Britain claiming refugee status- in that case they would be claiming as a refugee from France, which is silly.
But without doing this along the way, the source remains in play.

If you've found text in the Convention that a reasonable person would interpret as signatories have an obligation to grant asylum to those fleeing a well founded fear of unhappiness, by all means please do share it with me.

Its right in the opening preamble.
Of course, most would interpret this as "Well thats not meant to be taken completely literally". But its still there and I gather some do make this case.

My belief is the signatories were motivated to create this treaty by the fact that Jews fleeing Germany were often blocked from entering safe haven countries.  We totally fucked that up, let's do it right next time. Thus persecution to me is something like what the Jews faced.

Yes, it is a term of art, and can mean almost anything you want it to.  However I believe my interpretation is closer to the text of the treaty than your interpretation.

What is my interpretation and your interpretation?

I am willing to believe this insanity came to be because this is England and nobody wanted to risk their career by making a stand for the sane option of risking a tiny portion of that 1% of bat population in the interest of this project.

But if this was in Hungary (there are examples like a giant viaduct compensating for some gently rolling hills for a motorway or tunnels cutting through similar non-issue hills because of reasons) I'd be certain the root cause was corruption.

I do think there's *something* to this in the UK, but I wouldn't say corruption is the right word.
To me corruption implies some purposful mutual back scratching and thievery.
This.... its more various groups all insisting, some no doubt truthfully, they're the most important people and need lots of money for their projects. Nothing being 'illicitly' pocketed, if you wanted to build a gigantic bat tunnel 100 million is a fair cost (taking into account other British problems...), but certainly lots of unnecessary work being done and no real oversight to say "Wait a minute, this is silly".

I return to the bat shed.

Apparently the bats don't live in the forest HS2 (and the shed) is going through. They live in other nearby forests. This is about protecting the bats in case they forage in those woods.

It is also £100million on a community of about 300 bats (1% of the nationwide population of that species). As IPPR North have calculated in their North-Bat Divide work, that means we are spending about £4,500 on a per bat basis. Which is more than we spend per person on public transport in London (about £3,500) or the North (about £1,000)

Truly it is just a mystery we'll never be able to solve why productivity is so low in this country...

Further proof the UK is ran by a secret cabal of vampires.

[Sheilbh]

I am willing to believe this insanity came to be because this is England and nobody wanted to risk their career by making a stand for the sane option of risking a tiny portion of that 1% of bat population in the interest of this project.

But if this was in Hungary (there are examples like a giant viaduct compensating for some gently rolling hills for a motorway or tunnels cutting through similar non-issue hills because of reasons) I'd be certain the root cause was corruption.

I don't think it's corruption in the way we think of that.

So we know what happened in this case - according to the CEO of HS2. The line is going through this "ancient woodland" which is already very unpopular with the local council. As part of that process Natural England (who, I believe have a statutory right to be consulted) are consulted and flag the risk for bats - I'd add here this is where I think a healthy bit of corruption or politicisation would have helped, but the (Boris Johnson appointed) head of Natural England is a former president of Friends of the Earth and Green Party parliamentary candidate, so fair to say has robust views on this sort of thing.

In order to address the risk to bats, HS2 design this "bat tunnel". This is going to cost £40 million two year's ago - ironically at this point local bat NIMBYs opposed this tunnel, with Buckinghamshire's wildlife trust saying it will be too late because the very process of construction will have already destroyed the (hypothetical) bat habitat. The local council also oppose it on the grounds that it's an eyesore.

So HS2 have a statutory conultee saying you need to mitigate the bat risk and Buckinghamshire council refusing permission to build the bat risk mitigation. I suspect many millions are added here working on different designs to placate one or other of these parties. As the HS2 guy says they spend lots on environmental specialists, hydrologists, lawyers etc at this point (and it is worth noting - there isn't actually any evidence that high speed rail is a problem, we just think it might be). Eventually it goes to the planning commission over the council's head and they grant permission for the mitigation.

I don't think there's corruption anywhere in that chain. I think everyone involved is doing their job and, in their own mind, is probably just the good guy. They're doing the thing they are legally supposed to do. The problem is that cumulatively it's a lot of vested interests - and where I think it does border on corruption is that there'll be people going from the council or Natural England or others into consultancy firms who specialise in doing, say, environmental impact assessments and design bat mitigations in order to address the concerns of the council or Natural England etc. It's a circular economy.

As he points out (and this was the most difficult bit of the route) but from Euston to Birmingham required 8,276 consents from other public bodies: planning, transport, environment, habitats etc. I'd be surprised if there was much graft or bribery or corruption in that process. I think it's people doing their jobs, but cumulatively we've accidentally invented a system with a lot of vested interests (and designed to be vested interests: Natural England's job is to care about things like bat habitats) who each can form a bottleneck and can, at each point, add cost.

This isn't just a planning thing. It's across the British state. You also see it with Hinkley Point C. We're building a nuclear plant based on designs that have been used in France - there's been lots of planning issues but the UK regulator required over 7,000 changes to the design that has been used and approved in France. We see this on IT procurement projects and defence procurement (I remember reading an American commentators astonishment given the UK's budgetary constraints of our reluctance to accept a 90% solution for a 50% price, we will always go for 200% price for 95% solution).

On that theme there is Lower Thames Crossing a project which has been in the works for 10-20 years and is basically necessary to expand capacity for crossing the Thames without diverting HGV traffic into relatively central London. The Lower Thames Crossing planning application was submitted this year - it consists of over 350,000 pages across about 2,500 documents. It has already cost £300 million to get to this stage. And just this week the Department for Transport announced....that it was launching the seventh round of consultations on it

On Natural England in particular, they're also the people who require and hand out "newt handling licenses" if you take certain mitigations to protect newt populations. Here's another example - the legislation this comes from is basically 1980s laws to end cruel sports (badger baiting) and I'd note the badger population is now a bit of a concern in rural areas as it's exploded - but....

Mike Hudack
@mhudack
When badgers tunneled under my house @NaturalEngland told us it would be illegal to close the tunnel without a license, and they wouldn't grant us a license for six months.

When I told them that a structural engineer had said the house might collapse if the tunnel wasn't filled they said "If the house is unsafe you should move out," and insisted they couldn't grant an emergency license to close the hole and that filling the hole without a license would be a crime punishable by prison time and an unlimited fine.

(This is partly why I always slightly struggled with those Guardian stories of terrifying Tory deregulation and politicisation of quangos - I don't think the evidence ever really backed it up...)

Edit: But basically I don't think it's corruption but there are lots of people making money out of it, but that's just doing their jobs which we legally require they do in various rounds of consultations and stakeholder events and mitigation designs. But no-one's making untold millions on this. It's people doing their work to the best of their ability - if it's a useful way to spend their or anyone else's resources is another question.

Edit: Also love the chart IPPR North did on the Bat-North Divide

[Sheilbh]

Think this is very smart by Robert Shrimsley in the FT. Incidentally I'm one of the country's three fans of Lord Mandelson (and that's including him) but I think he'd be a disastrous choice for Ambassador to DC and I think his positions on China (who have paid him a lot as a lobbyist) make me a little uneasy with him having too much influence on Labour.

But, on this, I think he's right. It's the dilemma for pro-EU types after Brexit. You either stay aligned in order to make it easier to eventually rejoin at the cost of lower growth in the meantime because you've got all the costs of EU membership without access to the single market, or you are willing to diverge opportunistically which will be better for growth but make it more difficult to eventually re-join. The latter is the right choice and I think we are finally being dragged to it and after the performance of not being in the EU under the Tories, we'll see the practical divergence under Labour (I'd add I also think we're more exposed post-Brexit so likely to be forced by Trump into a far harder stance on China than the EU which is split).

Donald Trump, the final facilitator of Brexit
Britain must relearn the art of the deal or risks being buffeted by big power politics
Robert Shrimsley YESTERDAY

Now where have we heard these words before? Peter Mandelson, the former cabinet minister and EU commissioner now widely touted in Labour circles as the next ambassador to Washington, has pronounced that in navigating its relationship between the EU and a Trump-led America, Britain needs to "have our cake and eat it".

Mandelson is no Boris Johnson, so his adoption of the former prime minister's cakeist Brexit mantra offers a hint of the government's early thinking on how to respond to the new reality.

The first days since Donald Trump's victory have provoked strong opinions, most of which argue the UK must now do whatever the commentator already wanted to see happen.

Left Remainers see a chance for closer ties with the EU in the horror of Trump 2. The free-trade Brexit dream is over and, with an unreliable Atlantic ally and looming trade war, the UK cannot risk being squashed between two blocs. On the environment, European security and maintaining multilateral order, the UK aligns with the EU. Keir Starmer may have ruled out rejoining its structures this parliament but policy can tilt faster towards regulatory realignment and security pacts.

Brexiters are similarly excited. Here at last is that coveted UK-US free-trade deal, which could further push Britain out of the EU's regulatory orbit. The UK has too many defence and trade interests to abandon the Atlantic alliance, so the only option is to double down on it. Throw in hawkishness on China and doubts over the stability of European leadership and the play is obvious.

It is possible that Trump's second term is so shocking that judgments change but choosing sides is not in Britain's interest. Both alliances must be sustained. There is no benefit to being pulled further from an EU with which Britain has just begun to rebuild ties and no prospect of the UK walking away from the Atlantic alliance. In any case, all the grand strategies assume a degree of agency the UK may not have.

So, in the words of one diplomatic source with an eye for a happy phrase, Britain must "relearn the art of the deal". The nation's diplomatic and economic stance needs to be more transactional. Realpolitik will rule. That means minimising unwanted choices and advancing UK interests through ad hoc alliances built around specific goals. Tying America to a shared agenda will not be easy. Trump will be even less biddable second time around and the value of his anglophilia is overstated.

With the US, Britain will lean on intelligence and defence ties as it seeks to keep America engaged in Europe. US demands for higher defence spending are a necessary and fair price for maintaining Nato and some of that can be spent in America. While arguing for free trade, the UK will also seek to minimise direct tariff disruption, and since its exports are services-led, its small goods surplus should push it lower down Trump's targets. A full trade deal will not be the primary focus, but if a politically sellable agreement that does not limit opportunities with the EU is on offer, then of course Britain will take it.

Some point to last year's Atlantic Declaration between Rishi Sunak and Joe Biden as a template. Security — including the Aukus defence pact — defence technology, life sciences and artificial intelligence will be the overlapping areas of interest, and ones where the UK is closer to American regulatory instincts. Starmer might face an early test in the efforts of Nigel Farage and other China hawks to wind up Trump to push back the recent deal to hand sovereignty of the Indian Ocean's Chagos Islands, home to a joint UK/US military base, to Mauritius.

With the EU, the focus will be on defence and energy security, data sharing, easing obstacles to market access and some form of youth mobility scheme. Starmer and David Lammy, foreign secretary, are working to reinsert the UK into EU structures, primarily via a new security pact.

The UK is going to be buffeted by big power politics. It can neither afford to repel nor cosy up to China but it is already putting more diplomatic effort into Beijing while emphasising alliances with Japan and Australia.

Relearning the art of the deal also means acting with more humility, coaxing rather than demanding, and avoiding jingoistic stances that win temporary cheers in the press but alienate potential allies. The UK must act as a middle power, outside of rival economic blocs, weaving between the EU and US, being a strong voice and building alliances for causes it supports, as it has with Ukraine and climate change.

Recent Foreign Office reviews demanded by Lammy, who anticipated Trump's win, have focused on economic diplomacy and on working with the global south (where the west has lost ground to China), while the Budget found more funding for the soft power of the BBC World Service.

This then is a vision of Britain on its mettle. And if that all sounds a little familiar, there is a reason. For this is an updated vision of the freewheeling Global Britain that Johnson and the Brexiters championed. As then, such statecraft is easier to articulate than achieve but for now at least it may be the best available model.

Before the US election, most in Labour saw a future in which they drew closer to the EU with the blessing of the White House and all worked together on shared security and climate goals. 

The new president has changed that calculation. Labour remains too pro-EU to be pushed from its orbit. But in forcing the UK to adjust to a new and unwelcome world order, it may well be that Trump becomes the man who delivers the original diplomatic vision of Brexit.

On Chagos the timing was apparently to get the announcement out before the election in Mauritius. The government in Mauritius lost that election, the government in the US who supported the deal have also lost power and yesterday there was a protest of Chagosians against the deal. I suspect it'll be a slow burning problem for Starmer and Lammy (as literally anyone could have guessed) throughout the next while as it is the single most valuable thing we bring to the alliance with the US which I suspect Trump's team will push on - and opposed by many Chagosians.