Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Everything you write sounds plausible. It reinforces my view that Johnson is only talking, but not actually making policy to achieve his stated ambitions.

I think it is mixed. The regulatory side is starting to take a bit of form and looks promising. There's other changes that I think are potentially positive. The big thing that is missing in my view is investment and commitment. Especially if the goal is not just to be a scientific research superpower (and I think the UK could credibly claim to already be doing well in this sphere in global comparisons) but also good at applied science. And I don't see that emerging because it will cost money and require long-term investment.

I think there is, or can be, a coherent strategy around this and I think it probably is one of the right ones. I've said before but I think post-Brexit the UK needs to focus on what it does well and strengthen that. I think post-Brexit we have to be realistic. So despite all parties having an obsession with, say, Germany (but in different ways) and wanting a more "real" economy, I think we should focus on where we already have an advantage/developed sector and double down on that.

The areas where I think we have a competitive advantage already are research, culture and financial/professional services. I think this government is half-way there on research/science, actively hostile on culture and no-one in British politics wants to be associated with or likes financial/professional services. Overall I think that's a problem which means we will probably waste a lot of time and probably money too going down dead ends.

There are examples related to the thread title Brexit besides the domestic issues you named.  British government policy makes it harder for scientists and students from Europe to come to the UK.

Yes but the government have made it easier for students and scientists from the rest of the world (and I've seen some fairly prominent online Remainers go to borderline "yellow peril" racism about why that's a bad idea - I think they maybe need to take care/focus on why ending free movement is bad not why Chinese students are bad). In general the immigration rules especially for students have been liberalised since Brexit.

The big question with all of this is whether that's enough to off-set the loss from Europe and if not we need in my view we need to go further.

Also this is an area where government policy works for research and finance/professional services but is actively harmful to culture, but they don't care about that sector.

British hostility in diplomatic relations with the EU might see it excluded from the science program Horizon. Both not sensible policies when your stated goal is to become a science superpower.

Agreed- I think the TCA says Britain "shall" join Horizon which is legally not conditional so it should happen as part of implementing the agreement. But I think it's fair to say it's on a back burner from the EU until other issues are resolved.

The other point is I keep mentioning France as the country that should be our model on this and if it wasn't for the Brexit flaps with France over fishing and also domestic politics on both sides (especially post-AUKUS), we should be looking to work with France. I think about this particularly with nuclear because that is a controversial area as an EU project - but the UK is putting support behind nuclear, there's also Rolls Royce with their small modular reactors and you have Macron announcing that France is re-launching its nuclear programme. If it wasn't for the Brexit issues, this should be an area that we cooperate on and work together.

What's with the UK's participation in Horizon? I read somewhere recently that it had been agreed but is now on jeopardy as a collateral victim of the disputes regarding the Northern Ireland agreement.

Legally it has been agreed. If the UK were to use A16 in the protocol (which I don't think they will) then as part of a proportionate response I think the EU could suspend that.

The complaint from the UK is that the TCA obligation is "shall" so the UK should be in Horizon already but that it's been slow-pedalled by the EU. I think that's correct legally, but I also think the EU slow-pedalling is fair politically.

[Tamas]

That ambition will of course fail, but I guess setting it for today's headlines is all he cares about.

I wanted to write "don't worry this will trigger days of ultra-serious speculations in the British press" but then i saw Sheilbh already provided the example. 

I assume he was on some semi-related event/speaking opportunity, and he said some glamorous BS. It is 100% inconsequential. There will be exactly as many meaningful steps taken in this direction as there have been for the two dozen other "high ambitions" he and his people brought up in an effort to get a good-sounding soundbite. Zero.

[Josquius]

Johnson has a long habit of throwing dead cats on tables.
Talking big with no intention of actually following up on any of it. As get people talking about a Irish sea tunnel or whatever and they ignore what you're up to.

[Sheilbh]

I wanted to write "don't worry this will trigger days of ultra-serious speculations in the British press" but then i saw Sheilbh already provided the example. 

I assume he was on some semi-related event/speaking opportunity, and he said some glamorous BS. It is 100% inconsequential. There will be exactly as many meaningful steps taken in this direction as there have been for the two dozen other "high ambitions" he and his people brought up in an effort to get a good-sounding soundbite. Zero.

This seems a bit like the NLR piece to me. I posted that article about Johnson's comments - I think it was a Guildhall speech in the City but I could be wrong - mainly because of the foreign policy bit around Poland and Ukraine. I think too much criticism of the government is Remainers/anti-Tory voices talking to themselves about the things they already agreed on have been talking about for five years rather than engaging with reality (and obviously governments always have an advantage in this area because they can change reality).

Pre-Brexit foreign policy was probably the area that worried me most (apart from internal constitutional issues) with Brexit because I thought we'd end up pursuing growth so much that we'd just go all in on Cameron style "Golden Century" ties with China etc. That hasn't happened (since Johnson took over - it was a bit of a thing with May) which has been a positive surprise. The other big concern from many Remainers such as Cameron, the FT/Economist line, Blair, Philip Stephens etc was that the UK was just doomed to irrelevance and wouldn't be able or in a position to do anything. I was always doubtful of that, but I don't think that's come true either.

The reality is that the UK's been reasonably successful I'd say in a modest, balanced Indo-Pacific tilt (AUKUS, trade deals, carrier group visit - and apparently CPTPP membership talks going very quickly and "on track" to join in 2022 according to Japanese officials). I also think the UK has maintained its European commitment - it has, at the request of Poland, sent a small group of soldiers to support Poland, it was the first European country to impose sanctions on Belarus over the protests and Ryanair flight, it's developing closer ties (and has reached a new agreement) with Ukraine and the navy participated in exercises in the Black Sea and the Baltic.

It's broadly stuff I agree with - but there's definitely substance to criticise there, there are choices being made and there will be consequences because of them. Lots of Remainy/liberal-left voices are still talking in terms of Brexiteers as Russian patsies and irrelevance. I don't think that's connected to reality and it leaves them sinking into the sea giggling at their own jokes. It's why I think the NLR criticism that Johnson's rapidly increasing military spending, becoming even more tied to the US and leading down a Blairite path is more relevant and interesting because it's analysing and attacking what is being done not just living in discourse floating above reality.

I think it's the same with this and some other areas.

Science was put at the heart of the IDR as a strategic goal. I work in tech law - I can tell you there is a flurry of regulatory change being worked on and it isn't de-regulation per se (but there's some of that) but lots of regulators and departments are consulting on big changes and developing new regulations and laws in this area. I am literally working on responses to at least three live consultations now and there's more regulatory change in the works than any other time I can remember. There is an increase in spending on science in the last two budgets and there is vastly increased state interest and support for some areas particularly space, life science and cyber (all for obvious reasons).

I think there's loads of good criticisms to be made in this area - whether it's enough investment, whether they're focusing on the right areas, will it work, is it being supported by other relevant departments like the Home Office etc - for example I don't think you can do well in science internationally if your main goal is to make people feel unwelcome when they come to the country. Basically is this coherent and is it enough - and, as I say, my view is probably not. But I don't think it's right to say nothing is happening and it's just words.

And just to come back to the immigration point - I am increasingly of the view (which I thought before Brexit a little bit) that the policies you need for making Brexit work are almost the opposite of what many Brexiteers campaigned on and I think part of the issue for this government is straddling both, but at some point that will break decisively and my view is that reality normally wins.

Johnson has a long habit of throwing dead cats on tables.

I think dead cat is an idea is something we need to retire - but I don't think talking about quantum computing or food R&D (which incidentally is I think, super-important and not talked about enough in the context of climate) is a dead cat on any measure

[Sheilbh]

Clarissa Eden's obituary:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/16/clarissa-eden-obituary

It's really surprising that Eden's wife during the Suez crisis was still alive - but a very interesting life.

Separately but possibly linked to what we were talking about on science (and also foreign policy) the government has referred the takeover of ARM by Nvidia (from Softbank) to the competition regulator on competition and national security grounds.

Edit: And possibly relevant to the point I made about culture being an area we should be focusing on - Pinewood studios have announced that Netflix are basically doubling the production space there, which is very good news for the UK film and TV industry. Don't think this has much to do with government and as I say I think they're actively hostile to our culture industry, though no doubt they will try to take credit.

[Zanza]

British foreign policy has one big hole that affects all other initiatives: The British government pretends that the local hegemon, the European Union, does not exist outside the narrow field of the NIP/TCA. However, no matter whether it is trade, security, immigration, climate change, public health, defense, science etc. policy in Europe has to take the EU into account. Even if you hate it and want to see it destroyed. But just pretending it does not exist will always leave a hole in any foreign policy Britain attempts. All the other European countries that Britain might have interactions with will take the EU into account and often manage their foreign policy via EU mechanisms.

[Sheilbh]

British foreign policy has one big hole that affects all other initiatives: The British government pretends that the local hegemon, the European Union, does not exist outside the narrow field of the NIP/TCA. However, no matter whether it is trade, security, immigration, climate change, public health, defense, science etc. policy in Europe has to take the EU into account. Even if you hate it and want to see it destroyed. But just pretending it does not exist will always leave a hole in any foreign policy Britain attempts. All the other European countries that Britain might have interactions with will take the EU into account and often manage their foreign policy via EU mechanisms.

What practical impact does that actually have though? What foreign policy issue would you call Brussels over? Thinking of big issues/policy areas there's no common EU view on China or Russia, on Ukraine it's the Minsk process with France and Germany, on Iran it's the E3 - I've no doubt that France and Germany consult with the EU on those issues but it's not in the Commission's remit.

I absolutely think the EU and UK should formalise a foreign policy/security relationship - both parties excluded this at different points to avoid the other party from using it as leverage and I think the failure to think about the geopolitical angle of two neighbours and allies has always been a huge issue in the Brexit process. But I don't think the lack of a formal relationship with the UK has impacted the FCDO or MoD trying to achieve their goals in the Pacific, or supporting Ukraine or allies in Eastern Europe. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any area where this gap has actually manifested or mattered - maybe the West Balkans where the UK is no longer participating in the EU mission in Bosnia?

Ultimately I think that reflects the way member states use the EU for foreign policy which is that key strategic decisions are still national and the EU is used as a force multiplier - plus obviously when it impacts trade policy which is a clear EU competence when looking at sanctions. I think there's a reason that the Foreign Affairs Council is not one of the important European Council groups - unlike, say, ECOFIN and obviously the Commission's competence is incredibly limited. The EU is a trade and regulation and monetary policy superpower. But I'm not sure that in terms of foreign policy or security it's particularly important, far less a local hegemon. As we've talked about before I think we can see the consequences of the absence of a coherent EU approach in its neighbourhood. As I say I think that's because that's what member states want out of the EU and I hope it changes with more integration, but at the minute I don't think it's there.

I've mentioned it before but two EU member states were backing different sides in Libya. France and Greece have developed an extremely close relationship, with a new stronger mutual defence treaty. Last year the French sent their navy to support the Greeks in responding to Turkish aggression. At the same time Germany and Italy, though no cogniscant of Greece's concerns, generally are more sympathetic to Turkey (and the Italians were working with the Turks in Libya). We've seen the various ruckuses within the EU over how to engage with Russia since 2014. I don't think there's, yet, enough coherence to views among member states for the EU to be particularly important in those areas - and if I was Russia or China or Turkey I'd keep trying to engage/buy individual capitals to stop that ever hapening.

Although obviously there are also existing multilateral platforms where the UK and EU interact - the G7, the G20, the EU regularly attends NATO meetings and clearly in climate diplomacy they've been working together on in the context of COP. I think a formal relationship in addition to all those other platforms plus the bilateral relationships would be good because the EU and UK are neighbouring allies, but the other point is it's not clear to me what that looks like. We've discussed this before but I think the EU tends to engage with its neighbours primarily through the prism of accession/some form of association. I genuinely don't know what the model is for, for example, the foreign affairs and security cooperation with, say, Norway, Switzerland or Iceland or looking at more troubled/hostile areas with Ukraine, Russia or Turkey?

[Zanza]

Even if you limit your view of foreign policy to defense and security as you seem to do in your post, the existence of the EU is still relevant as it shapes and multiplies the policy of its members.

But that is just one field of foreign policy and as long as it is somewhat stable hardly meaningful for most people. Withdrawal from Afghanistan?  Who cares, I mean except Afghanis I guess. Has no relevance to the lives of most Europeans, including Britons. Even stuff closer to home like the annexation of Crimea are not that relevant. I guess conflicts are somewhat relevant when they cause refugee waves, but Frontex and shady deals with dictators actually seems an EU competence lately. Which Britain already notices being out of the club and thus outside Dublin agreement.

Anyway, foreign policy is so much more than that. Take the British government as example. Sure there is the foreign minister and the defence minister and they concern themselves with the topics you mentioned. But in the brief of every other minister there is gain in international cooperation too. Be it justice, exchequer (finance), home (interior), leveling up, healthcare and social services, business, energy, industrial policy, climate, work and pensions, education, food and rural affairs, transport, digital and culture, etc.

In all of these fields countries do conduct foreign policy as often issues are cross-border and need to be aligned with neighbours for best results. The vehicle to do that within Europe is the EU. British ministers are no longer sitting at the table when the rest discuss these topics. And with the growing hostility between UKG and EU ever further away.

But there is a plethora of policy where people actually benefit from greater cooperation and harmonization between different countries. A lot of which is much more relevant to people's lives than which warlord one country or another supports in Libya.

Making marriages, divorces and even child rearing easier cross-border, making education more exchangeable, supporting research cooperation, building traffic infrastructure across a continent and regulating the companies in that market, cross-border public health or climate initiatives, having standards, being able to transfer at least some social security etc. is meaningful. And it is foreign policy as it needs agreements with other countries.

I guess you can be insular and do some flag waving with a carrier in the Indian Ocean, but that will not be as meaningful to people's lives as having no roaming charges, shorter lines in the airport and health insurance included for their vacation in Benidorm.

[Duque de Bragança]

Less Brits in Benidorm would be a plus though Benidorm would still be ugly.

[Sheilbh]

Sure - but ultimately isn't a lot of that stuff basically just inevitable consequences of Brexit that the UK kind of has to take? My side lost (repeatedly) so we're a third country now.

I hope that over time the UK and EU will work together on more stuff because they are neighbours and allies, but there's always going to be stuff that's more difficult and complicated because of Brexit. Some will be with the EU, will be bilateral depending on competencies (social security agreements, for example, are a national competence). But I imagine practical things for, say, the UK and Germany or Poland will basically be like they are for those countries with, say, Canada or Japan - far more complicated than between EU countries, but in no way insurmountable and basically the way it is among rich countries. So for example health insurance is still covered when travelling in Europe, there are still social security agreements and recognitions of marriages etc - but we'll be in the longer queue and there will be roaming charges etc.

But on climate the UK is still cooperating with other countries, on tax like the EU and those member states they're working through the OECD (and on both of those were working with the EU or relevant EU ministers), on defence they're working through NATO, on foreign policy they've coordinated sanctions on Belarus or support for Hong Kong citizens with Canada and Australia (there's also just been a joint investigation into some shady AI company with Australia and regulators have been signing international MoUs all over the place). There are consequences of leaving Brexit, but the rest of the international system is still there and the UK is still part of it and will carry on working with likeminded countries (though I think the focus will be on other middle powers lilke Canada, Australia and Japan).

As I say the carrier group in the Pacific is part of that - the UK carrier group in the Pacific included ships from the Dutch fleet, it was at the same time as German ships were doing a Pacific visit and followed a French mission - and it was welcomed by allies in the region such as Japan, Singapore and Australia, and joined group training with the Netherlands, US, NZ, Canada and Japan. I wouldn't put that in opposition to international cooperation, I think it was fundamentally linked to international coooperation/the "rules based order" - it's just that following a number of democratic decisions the UK isn't part of European integration any more.

[Sheilbh]

Strikes me as a fairly important moment in Starmer trying to recover Labour - an apology to the Jewish community at an annual event by Labour Friends of Israel:
https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/1460614098782232592?s=20

Keir Starmer condemns 'anti-Zionist antisemitism'
The Labour leader also apologised for antisemitism within the party in a speech to Labour Friends of Israel

    Sir Keir Starmer has apologised to the Jewish community for antisemitism within the Labour party and attacked "anti-Zionist antisemitism".

    Speaking to the annual Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lunch, the Labour leader said on behalf of his party he was "sorry" for "the pain that has been caused to so many of you".

    "We will not stop until we have finished our work," he added.

    Sir Keir hailed his "personal" connection to the issue and revealed that as the family of his wife, Victoria Starmer, are Polish Jews he observes some Jewish traditions.

    He also told the audience, which featured Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely and Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mervis, that Labour "does not and will not support BDS."

    He said: "Its principles are wrong, targeted alone at the world's sole Jewish state.

    "We will fully oppose and condemn illegal settlements, annexation and the eviction of Palestinians from the occupied Palestinian territories."

    A boycott, divestment and sanctions policy would be "counterproductive," added Sir Keir.

    "It would drive people apart when we should be bringing them together."

    He said it would not only hurt the people of Israel and Palestine, but cause "huge damage" to the relationship between Israel and the United Kingdom.

    Sir Keir also condemned "anti-Zionist antisemitism" as "the antithesis of the Labour tradition."

    He said: "It denies the Jewish people alone a right of self-determination.

    "It equates Zionism with racism, focusses obsessively on the world's sole Jewish state and holds it to standards no other country is subjected."

    In a reference to David Baddiel, he said that under his leadership "every Jew will count."

    Sir Keir said the comedian had come to the doorstep of his house during lockdown to give him a copy of his "brilliant" book 'Jews Don't Count'.

    Mr Baddiel demonstrated, he said, that racism against Jews is held to a different standard than other kinds of racism.

    "From our earliest days... Labour at its best has also been an ally and friend to the cause of Jewish self-determination," said Sir Keir.

    "And Labour leaders - from Harold Wilson to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - have recognised Israel's importance to the community here at home, celebrated its achievements and stood by it in moments of peril."

    Ms Hotovely praised the Labour leader and shadow foreign secretary, Lisa Nandy, in her speech for defending her in the wake of the protest she faced at LSE.

[The Brain]

Let me guess: he's trying to change the anti-Semitic party from the inside?

[Josquius]

Let me guess: he's trying to change the anti-Semitic party from the inside?

Labour isn't "the anti semitic party".
Anti semitism in labour blew up into such a big deal in large part because its so out of the ordinary and not what labour is typically about.

[The Brain]

[Josquius]