Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Are these anti-vaxxers again?
The other week they protested a block of flats that used to be owned by the BBC.

[Sheilbh]

I feel like they have to be anti-vaxxers/anti-lockdown (again: there are almost no legal restrictions anymore).

I think this may be a bit of freemen of the land cross over given the Magna Carta stuff

[Tamas]

The most annoying stuff about things like this is that the actual benefactories of the magna carts ie the nobility would be impaling these peasants on their swords for the insult of thinking the Carta ever meant to give them any rights

[garbon]

I saw BBC alert that Geronimo is going to die. I also wondered why this would be top news after Afghanistan.

[Sheilbh]

I saw BBC alert that Geronimo is going to die. I also wondered why this would be top news after Afghanistan.

I suppose Afghanistn is now a "situation" rather than news - so I imagine it'll probably not get many alerts unless something "new" happens like more troops arrive to secure the airport, there's a tragedy of some sort, western troops leave the airport.

But this is something that slightly annoys me about the BBC - my guess is that it also reflects interest/clicks/feedback (even if on the news Geronimo is only an "and finally..." news story). But I think because the BBC isn't a commercial organisation they shouldn't necessarily care and are able to - and should - exercise a bit of editorial judgement over what's really important and deserves a place on the front page (having said that I suppose the Guardian has news/opinion/sports/features whatever the news)

This is an irritation I always feel whenever some arts or cultural show that costs tuppence to make gets cancelled by the BBC (there's now very little left which is I think a problem) or Channel 4 (I'm not convinced Channel 4 are really distinctively Channel 4 any more)

[Valmy]

As police officers appear in the footage, the female protester told officers they were seizing the castle under article 61 of Magna Carta. Magna Carta – signed by King John in 1215 – has never applied in Scotland as it predates the Act of Union.

Supporters of Edward I? I suppose they must be.



I have come to bring rule of law and liberate you from the tyranny of the lies of the Scottish Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Commons recalled to debate Afghanistan and it seems pretty consistent criticism of the government - it's the first time it's been (mostly) full since the start of the pandemic.

I don't think anyone other than a minister seemed to defend the government. Starmer seems to have been impressive (I particularly liked the snappy moment when he was criticising the government when Raab shouted "what would he have done?" and Starmer replied "I wouldn't have gone on holiday"), people saying Theresa May was excoriating and gave the speech she ever has in parliament. Unsurprisingly most damning seem to have been speeches from veterans who served with Afghan troops and Afghan translators. Still nowhere near enough on refugees

Tories rebuke Boris Johnson over 'catastrophic' Afghanistan failure
Former PM Theresa May says country 'may once again become a breeding ground for terrorism'
Rowena Mason and Peter Walker
Wed 18 Aug 2021 15.22 BST

Boris Johnson faced a wall of fury from all wings of the Conservative party over the UK's conduct in Afghanistan, with 11 former cabinet ministers among the dozens of MPs and peers expressing their anger and frustration at Britain's failures in intelligence and preparation.

During a torrid session in the House of Commons, the overwhelming majority of Tories who spoke condemned Britain's failure to anticipate the Taliban takeover of Kabul and its perceived humiliation on the world stage. More than 30 Tory MPs spoke against the government, while only a handful voiced support for its actions.

Some also roundly criticised the US president, Joe Biden, whose blaming of Afghanistan's security forces for the Taliban's return to power was described as "shameful".

Opposition MPs taunted Johnson and the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, who were both on holiday last weekend when Kabul was being surrounded by Taliban gunmen.

Opening an emergency debate after recalling parliament, Johnson insisted Britain could not have stayed in the country "without American might". He said a military defence of Afghanistan by the west was not possible in the absence of Washington's support.

However, his claim about the UK's withdrawal efforts were challenged by a number of high-profile Conservatives, including the former prime minister Theresa May, former defence secretary Liam Fox, and former foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt.

May delivered a scathing attack on the foreign policy and intelligence failures of Johnson and President Biden, suggesting the prime minister should have tried to form a Nato alliance to stay in Afghanistan without America.

"Was our intelligence really so poor? Was our understanding of the Afghan government so weak? Was our knowledge on the ground so inadequate? Or did we just think we had to follow the United States and on a wing and a prayer it would be all right on the night?" she said.

Other ex-cabinet ministers who joined in the criticism included Iain Duncan Smith, who said the "parallels with the departure from Saigon of the Americans was shocking but also very true". He demanded to know: "Did we at any stage demand that the US government review their decision? Did we say to them this was wrong?"

Owen Paterson, a former Northern Ireland secretary, called it the "UK's biggest humiliation since Suez", and said the west was "now in a mess".

"China, Russia and Iran are hostile. What are we going to say to citizens in Taiwan, India, Pakistan and western Ukraine? They will all be worried," he said.

In the House of Lords, Philip Hammond, a former defence secretary, foreign secretary and chancellor, said there had been a "catastrophic failure of western policy". Michael Howard, the former Tory leader and home secretary, said the withdrawal "fatally undermines the credibility of any assurance of support – past, present or future – that we in the west offer to those who need it", saying any future promises "will be in debased coinage".

In an emotional speech that drew rare applause from MPs from across the house, Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative foreign affairs committee chair who served as an rmy officer in Afghanistan, said the UK and its western allies had received a "very harsh lesson".

"This doesn't need to be defeat, but at the moment it damn well feels like it," he said.

Referring to President Biden's claim that the Afghan military had not had the stomach to fight for their country, he said: "To see their commander-in-chief call into question the courage of men I fought with – to claim that they ran – is shameful. Those who have not fought for the colours they fly should be careful about criticising those who have."

Many questions were focused on the government and security agencies' failure to anticipate the speed of the Taliban takeover. The former chief whip Mark Harper questioned Johnson on the "catastrophic failure of our intelligence or assessment of our intelligence", given that the prime minister suggested on 8 July there was no military path to victory for the Taliban.

In what appeared to be contradictory remarks, Johnson told the Commons events in Afghanistan had unfolded faster "than even the Taliban predicted", but this had not caught the government "unawares".

This left some Conservative MPs privately pressing for an inquiry by the intelligence and security committee and for Johnson to release the intelligence analysis. Andrew Bridgen, a Tory MP, asked the prime minister directly to "share with the house what assessment UK intelligence services made", but Johnson dodged the question.

A few backbench Conservatives also believe there is a case for a formal inquiry into the UK's failures in Afghanistan – a proposal rejected by Johnson. Tobias Ellwood, the chair of the defence committee, called for one and warned of his "fear that there will be an attack on the lines of 9/11 to bookend what happened 20 years ago".

Labour has not formally called for an independent inquiry but it is understood to be prepared to back one. The opposition also urged the prime minister to take more refugees than the 20,000 announced by No 10 on Tuesday night.

Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said it had been a "disastrous week, an unfolding tragedy" with Johnson leading an "appalling" response due to the UK's lack of preparation.

Addressing Raab directly, Starmer said the foreign secretary, who returned from a holiday in Crete on Sunday night, could not "coordinate an international response from the beach".

He said the promise of resettling 5,000 Afghan refugees under a new programme this year, with a further 15,000 helped in future years, was not enough. "For those desperately needing our help, there is no 'long term', just desperate survival," he said.

Criticism also came from Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who said the UK's commitment to taking refugees should be "moral" and based on need, not specific numbers. "The failure we face today is not military or diplomatic ... it is political," he said.

The prime minister told MPs the UK's position was that it would do everything possible to avert a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, without a military solution. "We must deal with this position as it now is. Accepting what we have achieved and what we had not achieved," he said.

Johnson told MPs: "The sacrifice in Afghanistan is seared into our national consciousness, with 150,000 people serving there from across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom – including a number of members on all sides of the house whose voices will be particularly important today. So it's absolutely right that we should come together for this debate."

He also promised the UK would double its aid budget to Afghanistan to £286m, though funding will still be lower than 2019 levels, and said the UK would use the G7 meeting next week to coordinate international humanitarian assistance.

Johnson's spokesperson said it was "new funding in addition to the current aid budget", which was £167.5m for 2020-21. But the £286m is still below the £292m of funding in 2019.

No 10 said the money could no longer go through the Afghan government now the country was held by the Taliban and said safe distribution of funds needed to be agreed at international level.

"That's something we will work on with the UNHCR, NGOs and other countries," the spokesperson said. "There is no current Afghan government and we are not giving this money to the Taliban, it will be used in conjunction with the UN and other routes that may be agreed."

[Tamas]

I feel like a couple of articles in the Guardian nicely showcase the contrast between the domestically perceived power of Britain and the realities of it.

One was about the roasting of the government over not anticipating and controlling the situation in Afghanistan, like Sheilbh quoted. It sounds as if the UK could influence policy and events on their own.

The other quotes sources who are worried the US will pull their Kabul airport contingent before the UK can finish their evacuation in which case there is no chance for the UK to hold the airport on their own.

[Sheilbh]

I feel like a couple of articles in the Guardian nicely showcase the contrast between the domestically perceived power of Britain and the realities of it.

One was about the roasting of the government over not anticipating and controlling the situation in Afghanistan, like Sheilbh quoted. It sounds as if the UK could influence policy and events on their own.

I agree - I think this is a huge tension. In fairness all of the criticism of the UK "on their own" has actually been - did the UK speak to NATO and to NATO partners to see if there was any will to increase commitments and carry on the mission in Afghanistan as NATO without the US? I think this thread by Lewis Goodall is excellent on the tension - and I think the combination of to some extent criticising the US situation/what's happening in Afghanistan v the ability to influence the situation seems common across Europe and should be sobering.

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
Summary/Thoughts on the debate.

- Great deal of consensus across the House on several things. Notably a) unhappiness with the government's handling b) profound distaste with President Biden's speech.

-Government often had toughest time from its own benches.
First summer parliamentary recall since 2014 now getting underway

Government has accepted a backbench effort to extend the sitting from 1430 to 1730.
-Both sides were perturbed by a) potential intelligence failures b) lack of strategic direction c) lack of challenge to the Americans d)British policy on refugees e) performance of individual ministers, especially PM and Foreign Sec

-There were powerful speeches which you'll have heard about.

-But there was also a consensus among MPs which was more curious. A consensus where v little thought appeared to have been given to a) the general merits or demerits of intervention, which is v curious given what the conclusion was b) any of the arguments instead there was just an assumption that it had all fallen apart as a result of the US withdrawal, without addressing how the government, after all the training, all the money, could fall so quickly, how it was the Taliban regained so much strength, how the Afghan govt was considered so corrupt. This didn't happen overnight and part of that was the failure of Western policy and intervention itself, which as I say, was barely addressed. Given how chequered the history of intervention has been over the past decades, it was odd.

c) the elephant in the room- relative British geostrategic power. At times some MPs seemed despondent we hadn't fought on alone. The PM was surely right that even with French assistance that would have been extremely difficult. Likewise our ability to make Trump or Biden think again would have been limited, but often there was no attempt to even grapple with this fact, just as an assumption we hadn't made the effort. As I said earlier, not for the first time, it felt like the Commons was engaging with a strategic position they'd like Britain to have rather than the one we inhabit.

And that is, for Britain, what this episode has helped illustrate. Our geopolitical position hasn't felt less certain for decades. MP after MP (from both sides) implored the government to provide an example of what global Britain now means. There was no answer, because right now there isn't one. One of the pillars of a "Global Britain" was a re-emphasis of the Atlantatcist relationship. With MPs on both side of the House decrying both a Republican and Democrat president, there didn't feel like there was much left of that. But the clear alternative- greater European integration for obvious reasons is not possible in the way it once was either. It all led, despite some very memorable and powerful speeches, to at times an air of unreality about the debate, or at least one where the participants  seemed to avert their gaze from a crucial  bit of context- the power realities of the world Britain finds itself in.

In other words, Biden's speech was a deeply realist if perhaps cynical account of US' place in international relations. But it was at least rooted in a sense of what American strength is and strategic aims should be. There was very little of that in the Commons today.
Sometimes it just seemed too easy in this debate to blame the Americans, as if all were well before the pull out, rather than recognising the fact that one of the reasons for the pull out was all was not well. There was little critical engagement with that central fact.

End.

The other quotes sources who are worried the US will pull their Kabul airport contingent before the UK can finish their evacuation in which case there is no chance for the UK to hold the airport on their own.

Maybe I think at the minute there's about 900 UK troops at the airport and there were 3,000 Americans (I think that increased to 6,000 today or yesterday). Obviously they're co-operating but I think if there was an emergency or the US pulled out before the UK (and other European nations) had completed their evacuations I think the Army probably have enough troops to hold the airport - and if the US pulled out I think there's a strong argument for at least a Franco-British force to hold it until European countries have completed their evacuation, if not a wider NATO mission to hold it.

If that would actually happen, I don't know. The US have said they're there "to get all Americans out of Afghanistan", so I think the UK is rushing to get as many Brits out just in case the Americans leave.

Incidentally I am unreasonably furious that one of the Brits taking up a spot on the packed evacuation flights was a danger tourist

Edit: Although the US leaving before European nations have completed their evacuations would, hopefully, provide the wake-up call I think Europe needs. It's a bit like America still basically identifying its interests with Europe's in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. If, at some point, they decide that's shifted or it's not worth it we may find our little end of history holiday in this continent ending.

[Agelastus]

Opening an emergency debate after recalling parliament, Johnson insisted Britain could not have stayed in the country "without American might". He said a military defence of Afghanistan by the west was not possible in the absence of Washington's support.

True, which made most of the comments made in Parliament truly laughable.

"Was our intelligence really so poor? Was our understanding of the Afghan government so weak? Was our knowledge on the ground so inadequate? Or did we just think we had to follow the United States and on a wing and a prayer it would be all right on the night?" she said.

Well yes, we haven't had the capacity to do anything like this ourselves since the ill-judged "peace dividend" cuts at the end of the Cold War (when the money should have been redirected to other parts of the Armed Forces) at the absolute latest.

And there's been cuts since. Roughly once every ten years, the last two of which you probably voted for.

[Josquius]

Incidentally I am unreasonably furious that one of the Brits taking up a spot on the packed evacuation flights was a danger tourist

Yeah, there was a thread on reddit about this guy. Lots of people from his university sharing stories. He's a well known cunt, apparently updated 4chan as he was on the plane waiting to take off that he's happy to be taking a seat from a "rapeugee"

[viper37]

did the UK speak to NATO and to NATO partners to see if there was any will to increase commitments and carry on the mission in Afghanistan as NATO without the US?

Even with the US there, it was a resounding NO.  Canada has long mostly pulled out of there, France did the bare minimum, Germany tried to train a decent police force and failed, other countries don't really have the military strength required, or the required defense budget.

Edit: Although the US leaving before European nations have completed their evacuations would, hopefully, provide the wake-up call I think Europe needs. It's a bit like America still basically identifying its interests with Europe's in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. If, at some point, they decide that's shifted or it's not worth it we may find our little end of history holiday in this continent ending.

I don't think it's the first wake-up call Europe gets.  And I don't think it will be the last.
There is zero interest in the general populace for an integrated Euro-force.  Even coordinating amonst NATO allies in Europe seems sometimes problematic, not to mention the Turkey problem, part of NATO but more&more aligned toward Moscow.
[/quote]

[Neil]

I feel like a couple of articles in the Guardian nicely showcase the contrast between the domestically perceived power of Britain and the realities of it.

One was about the roasting of the government over not anticipating and controlling the situation in Afghanistan, like Sheilbh quoted. It sounds as if the UK could influence policy and events on their own.

The other quotes sources who are worried the US will pull their Kabul airport contingent before the UK can finish their evacuation in which case there is no chance for the UK to hold the airport on their own.

And if it was just the Guardian, I'd say that it was just typical 'Everything the other guy does is wrong!' stuff.  But Tories are also deeply displeased.  This sort of thing cuts down their aspirations (or, less charitably, delusions), and they're finding themselves a bit adrift. 

[Sheilbh]

And if it was just the Guardian, I'd say that it was just typical 'Everything the other guy does is wrong!' stuff.  But Tories are also deeply displeased.  This sort of thing cuts down their aspirations (or, less charitably, delusions), and they're finding themselves a bit adrift.

Fair - and I'd add the identity of some of the Tory critics is striking. It's unusual for former PMs, Foreign and Defence Secretaries from your own party, as well as two other former party leaders to criticise a government as forcefully as they did. Not to mention the sitting (Tory) chairs of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Select Committees.

You know those are party grandee, establishment figures so it's not just Tory headbangers. And on the aspirations/delusions point I think that's fair for some of the comments - IDS especially - but, for example, Theresa May was damning.

And in a way they were coming at Johnson from slightly different angles - and it is maybe an interesting reflection that actually the "establishment" is more invested in Afghanistan, on all sides, than in the US. But also almost all sides were condemning the government on getting people out and refugees - the promise to accept 5,000 Afghan refugees now going up to 20,000 later was not enough. I think Chris Bryant's point on this was fair: "The Home Secretary announced this morning that the UK will take 20,000 refugees from Afghanistan but that only 5,000 will be able to come this year. What are the 15,000 meant to do? Hang around and wait to be executed?"

On refugees - and I why I hate the Lib Dems - the Lib Dem council of Torbay, a pretty coastal town in Devon, have said they won't take any refugees because Torbay is facing a "perfect storm" of a housing crisis. The local MP, a Tory, has said the council need to get a grip

[The Larch]

The UK's "big heart" in action:

More than 100 guards at the British embassy in Kabul, some who have been there for 10+ years, have been told they are not eligible for UK protection because they were hired through an outsourced contractor,