Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

I don't really see its relevance to any other area. The deal you have with the EU after leaving the EU is always going to be pretty sui generis, not least because the EU is.

Two reasons it matters:

First, the US stated publicly that it will keep Trump era steel tariffs on the UK that it has lifted for the EU because of concerns over the Northern Ireland Protocol. So the dogma of sovereignty comes at a price not just in dealing with the EU, but also with the US. That's already 2/3 of British trade volume.

Second, to implement woke targets in a trade deal without common enforcement institutions you need trust and goodwill of both sides to follow the agreed upon rules. Stuff like labor rights or environmental protection cannot be realistically monitored by the counterparty, so they have to trust the UK. Two issues here: On the one hand, the dogma of sovereignty means that by definition the UK shall be free to diverge whenever parliament wants so. On the other hand, Johnson has shown himself to be supremely untrustworthy in international relations. The world notices that. Both less than ideal to get another party to commit to any UK woke asks in good faith.

I also don't see what's particularly regressive about it.

It's much weaker on the woke targets that supposedly are now part of British trade policy than the single market membership was. And has to stay so due to the sovereignty dogma. You can only realistically achieve woke targets with other countries of you are willing to limit your own sovereignty.  Else, it's just putting something into a deal that you wanted to do anyway, deal or no.

[Sheilbh]

Two reasons it matters:
First, the US stated publicly that it will keep Trump era steel tariffs on the UK that it has lifted for the EU because of concerns over the Northern Ireland Protocol. So the dogma of sovereignty comes at a price not just in dealing with the EU, but also with the US. That's already 2/3 of British trade volume.

I don't think the Northern Ireland Protocol is about sovereignty.

And I don't think anyone is denying there are costs for any aspect of sovereignty - we've left the EU which has big costs. The debate was are they worth it.

Second, to implement woke targets in a trade deal without common enforcement institutions you need trust and goodwill of both sides to follow the agreed upon rules. Stuff like labor rights or environmental protection cannot be realistically monitored by the counterparty, so they have to trust the UK.

All international trade agreements have enforcement mechanisms - that's different from creating common institutions. There's all the investor-state stuff. They're generally heard in arbitration (so not public) in neutral jurisdictions like London, Paris, Dubai, Mauritius. All the UK is doing is what most countries do - and as set out in that article "woke" terms are becoming more normal, they give the example of New Zealand.

The idea of building common institutions to police a trade agreement is unusual. What is described as an obsession with sovereignty just sounds to me like consequences of Brexit. We're a third country now and that's what this looks like.

Two issues here: On the one hand, the dogma of sovereignty means that by definition the UK shall be free to diverge whenever parliament wants so.

Again that's the standard position in the entire world. There's nothing unusual about that - a less loaded and more accurate description is that the UK is free to diverge in accordance with its constitutional procedures. It's the same for every country they'd just be in breach and have to suffer the consequences.

The EU position of having external supra-national body of law that is enforceable directly is unusual, it's why the EU is sui generis. It's hafway from an inter-state body and a state in development. That is not the norm for international law.

On the other hand, Johnson has shown himself to be supremely untrustworthy in international relations. The world notices that. Both less than ideal to get another party to commit to any UK woke asks in good faith.

I think this is overstated - I mean for example the US is profoundly concerned about Northern Ireland, it shows no indication yet that they consider the UK less trustworthy or are letting it affect other bits of the relationship. From everything I've seen it's important to them and they are keeping it contained to conversations about trade. See Aukus which the UK approached the US about (at the request of Australia) and was developed in extraordinarily high levels of secrecy and trust. The Japanese government have said they think the UK could be ratified into CPTPP within the next year - and welcomed the UK application and other UK policy changes. The UK's been entering agreements with various governments - including EU member states over the last year.

I'd argue the same is even happening with France - there's been rows in the last couple of months but there's been multiple posts and public statements from the French army and navy about joint mission, joint exercises and meetings with their UK counterparts. It feels almost like sending a message that the political stuff is a little messy but the fundamentals are being kept going.

If Brits overestimate the extent that Europeans care about Brexit, I think this is overestimating the extent that the rest of the world follows or cares. I don't think they see Brexit or some aspect of it as a fundamental test of British trustworthiness, I think it's another part of this messy divorce and they don't really care. I've read a lot about this risk from remain-y papers in the UK and some European writers, I have yet to see a single example.

And, of course, most countries make judgements about politicians - and I think one of the big ones coming from ambassadors will be that Boris Johnson probably isn't going to be Prime Minister for more than 5-6 years (my guess would be shorter I think we are closer to the end of his premiership than the beginning, though I could be very wrong). I think relatively few would want to take steps that might degrade their relationship with a country (which goes beyond the leaders) due to personal distrust.

[Zanza]

I don't think the Northern Ireland Protocol is about sovereignty.

You must be the only one then.

All international trade agreements have enforcement mechanisms - that's different from creating common institutions.

Not really. Mostly the dispute settlement mechanism is just "let's talk".

There's all the investor-state stuff. They're generally heard in arbitration (so not public) in neutral jurisdictions like London, Paris, Dubai, Mauritius.

Irrelevant as it is not between the parties of the deal, but between one party and a private actor within the jurisdiction of the other. Also "woke" FTAs do typically not include ISDS as these are hugely unpopular for good reason. And a massive infringement on sovereignty. 

The idea of building common institutions to police a trade agreement is unusual.

WTO?

What is described as an obsession with sovereignty just sounds to me like consequences of Brexit. We're a third country now and that's what this looks like.

It was a deliberate choice by UKG: sovereignty über alles. Other third countries made different choices, which means they have closer relations to Europe and thus are more likely to participate and even influence "woke" topics within the EU. The UK deliberately chose not to. Which in turn means that this new woke trade policy is ineffective as it does not apply to half of British trade.

Again that's the standard position in the entire world. There's nothing unusual about that - a less loaded and more accurate description is that the UK is free to diverge in accordance with its constitutional procedures. It's the same for every country they'd just be in breach and have to suffer the consequences.

No it is not. Pacta sunt servanda. In Britain (like British courts will find) and other countries there is a constitutional obligation to fulfill international treaties. The current UKG does not see it that way. Which is why they tried to pass stuff like the UKIM bill and pretended British law is above British international obligations. I expect that British judiciary will not see it that way.

I think this is overstated - I mean for example the US is profoundly concerned about Northern Ireland, it shows no indication yet that they consider the UK less trustworthy or are letting it affect other bits of the relationship. From everything I've seen it's important to them and they are keeping it contained to conversations about trade.

We were talking about woke trade agreements, no?

I have yet to see a single example.

Fair enough. Then again, things that do not happen due to lack of goodwill and trust are hard to see, so examples for something that could have happened with more trust and goodwill are of course hypothetical.

I think relatively few would want to take steps that might degrade their relationship with a country (which goes beyond the leaders) due to personal distrust.

You must have missed the Trump era of American foreign policy then. That has permanently damaged how America is seen in the world. Much more transactional now.

[Sheilbh]

You must be the only one then.

When Theresa May's more conciliatory negotiation team pointed out lots of  issues with some of the proposed EU approach to Northern Ireland (which is why she ended up going for a UK wide backstop - as a responsible unionist), I was apparently one of the only person who thought that they were raising real issues and not cakeism.

Now those issues have materialised and Sefcovic has acknowledged that it's not working as intended, I still think the ultimate motivation is fixing those issues.

Not really. Mostly the dispute settlement mechanism is just "let's talk".

That's not true - there's normally a duty to talk it out and cooperate. If that doesn't resolve it then you go to mediation, if that doesn't resolve it then you go to arbitration (or in certain urgen cases you skip to arbitration). The arbitral decision is binding. That's what exists in CETA for example and most other EU trade deals.

I'm not aware of any other relationship where the EU has what it was proposing for the UK agreement.

Irrelevant as it is not between the parties of the deal, but between one party and a private actor within the jurisdiction of the other. Also "woke" FTAs do typically not include ISDS as these are hugely unpopular for good reason. And a massive infringement on sovereignty. 

From my undestanding it's never within the jurisdiction of the other because that's not fair. It will always be in a neutral venue with an arbitration panel of some sort. But again it doesn't infringe sovereignty - it just puts a cost/consequences on decisions. What it was intended for, I think, is still good - the company who invests millions in a jurisdiction under an agreement and there's a change of government and their property is expropriated, or there's a forced IP transfer. Normally you have ver limited recourse for that.

Things like the Philip Morris example have expanded its remit far too much and in negative ways. But I think including private enforcement as well as between the parties tends to be better (it's the same theory for why it isn't just other states or the Commission that can go to the CJEU) and I think the next step in a "woke" FTA would be expanding the groups who have standing from investors to allowing say, a group claim, that could represent indigenous communities or workers if the state has been in breach.

WTO?

It's a multilateral organisation and treaties governing trade - it doesn't exist to police any specific trade agreement. Nothing about Brexit was about rejecting all multilateral organisations.

It was a deliberate choice by UKG: sovereignty über alles. Other third countries made different choices, which means they have closer relations to Europe and thus are more likely to participate and even influence "woke" topics within the EU. The UK deliberately chose not to. Which in turn means that this new woke trade policy is ineffective as it does not apply to half of British trade.

What other third country (and third country doesn't include the EEA in European law) has what the EU was proposing with the UK. Obviously it also doesn't stop the EU and UK working together through all the various other multilateral forums on those issues - for example the G7 which had a focus on gender equality this year or the COP process (which was co-chaired with Italy).

Also I don't think in the long-run the primary focus or levers in the EU-UK relationship will be trade.

No it is not. Pacta sunt servanda. In Britain (like British courts will find) and other countries there is a constitutional obligation to fulfill international treaties. The current UKG does not see it that way. Which is why they tried to pass stuff like the UKIM bill and pretended British law is above British international obligations. I expect that British judiciary will not see it that way.

I don't think the British judiciary would - what they would say is parliament can't accidentally breach binding treaty obligations. If that's what parliament needs to do they need to explicitly set it out and say it, otherwise the judiciary would interpret it in line with the treaty obligation because there's no way parliament would have meant to break that obligation and if they did they should have said it. That's why it had to be so explicit - the courts would, I think, be very unlikely to say you can impliedly have authority to breach international legal obligations.

But there are constant disputes between states over whether or not x policy is actually breaching their treaty obligations. There's nothing unusual about that and why the dispute mechanism exists it's also why you get creative solutions to avoid formal breach when, say, an executive is faced with a domestic legal duty that doesn't comply with a treaty obligation. But as with most law/legal cases there are always edge cases or arguable points or issues that one party thinks is worth fighting over even if they know they're legally in the wrong.

Fair enough. Then again, things that do not happen due to lack of goodwill and trust are hard to see, so examples for something that could have happened with more trust and goodwill are of course hypothetical.

That's fair - but as I said elsewhere I think foreign policy is one of the areas where the government's record has been pretty good and exceeded my expectations. But you're right there may have been other stuff that could have been done.

You must have missed the Trump era of American foreign policy then. That has permanently damaged how America is seen in the world. Much more transactional now.

I think that proves my point though. It changed people's attitudes, it changed moods - but it didn't change material reality and ultimately the US matters because of that not because of trust (and even then I think "trust" in the US was historically mainly a thing in Japan and Europe and not widely felt in, say, Latin America, South and South East Asia, the Middle East or Africa).

I think it's the same here even within Europe. Emotions are still, I think, raw - I think there is a real risk that Britain and France become the Japan and South Korea of Europe, which would be bad for everyone. But the UK is one of the two security powers in Western Europe, it's engaged quite intensely in Eastern Europe at the minute (visits to the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine and multiple ministers have visited Bosnia in the last month) and it's still a relatively big economy (larger than Russia or Turkey) - I think those material factors and the knowledge that it's a democratic system and no government is forever will override distrust of a current PM/government to keep things ticking at least under the surface. I think that's definitely the case in Eastern Europe where despite Brexit the UK is an essential security partner.

That could be wrong and I think there is a risk that you end up with two neighbours who should work together being invested in each other failing which would be the worst outcome (and I think there is a bit of that going on in French politics - because the French, uniquely, think the British out-negotiated the EU ).

[Josquius]

That could be wrong and I think there is a risk that you end up with two neighbours who should work together being invested in each other failing which would be the worst outcome (and I think there is a bit of that going on in French politics - because the French, uniquely, think the British out-negotiated the EU ).

"Nobody could have agreed to this disaster of a deal with all the other options open to them. Those sneaky Brits have clearly got one over on us somewhere. There must be something beneath the surface."

[Sheilbh]

As I said when Johnson appointed Gove to "Leveling Up" - if you don't want a policy agenda then you definitely don't appoint Gove to a department:

Henry Zeffman
@hzeffman
EXCL: Swathes of England could elect 'governors' under Michael Gove's levelling up plans

Target of all of England having a devolution deal with powers equivalent to London by 2030 set to feature in white paper
thetimes.co.uk
American-style governors could level up England
Swathes of rural England could elect powerful American-style governors under Michael Gove's plans to "level up" the country.Devolution is at the heart of his
Further devolution will be to counties or areas with coherent identities. More rural places where the term mayor is inappropriate could elect governors instead

Not everywhere will be forced to have a directly-elected mayor/governor, but those that do will get the most powers
But the levelling up white paper promised this year has been delayed to next year, I understand

Some parts still up for grabs. One draft includes a statutory levelling up regulator modelled on the OBR and CCC, checking all government policy for impact on regional inequalities
Front runners to get the first county deals, and mayors/governors, are Durham, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Cornwall and Norfolk, reports @georgegrylls


They all have a majority of Conservative MPs — we're more likely to see a new crop of Street/Houchens than Burnham/Khans

I don't actually hate this - though they should be merged with the Lord Lieutenants to stop multiplying names/titles (plus I don't like "Governor"). But that's a minor issue. He's also backing the back-bench Street Votes bill which I think is an interesting idea. I don't think it'll work, but it's interesting.

[Josquius]

Sounds good to me.
Though it's the sort of thing the tories are generally deathly opposed to so can't see it happening.
Also runs into the metro mayor's stuff.

[Sheilbh]

Sounds good to me.
Though it's the sort of thing the tories are generally deathly opposed to so can't see it happening.
Also runs into the metro mayor's stuff.

Although the Metro-Mayors were Osborne's creation - but there's been a bit of back and forth on them since.

I think the idea based on that description is everyone has a Metro-Mayor (for wider metropolitan regions) or a local "governor" for counties/rural areas.

[Josquius]

Reading it a bit closer I recant it sounding good. It's not regional devolution so much as potentially culture warry country vs city stuff.
I can see a case for very definite rural "mayors" in a few select extremely rural parts of the country but in other cases there is common sense in having a city focused country.
For instance the Highlands - sure. Definitely. Rural focus.
North Yorkshire on the other hand? They should be looking towards the surrounding major cities.

[Tamas]

But the levelling up white paper promised this year has been delayed to next year, I understand

Yeah Gove is right on this one, Sheilbh, the Get It Done Man, on it, proper like. 

Levelling up so far has been:
1. Cancelling HS2 for the North
2. Delaying the plans
3. But leaking that the plans will create new political positions to play around with


Grab on to your hats folks, the Reform Express is rolling out.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah Gove is right on this one, Sheilbh, the Get It Done Man, on it, proper like. 

Look at his record in education, justice and DEFRA. When Gove has a job with a department he tends to do things with it, rather showily (I think he always has posters/pictures of Lenin, Malcolm X and Blair in his offices ).

I've always said there's a couple of options witih leveling up - either you spend money and you still need some reform which it's clear Sunak won't agree to (apparently Johnson is going to do a speech/event to re-launch leveling up and has been told by the Treasury in no uncertain terms he can't announce anything new that costs money), or you bring in a reformer with a record of pushing through structural changes without costing lots of money and the only person in government with that record is Gove.

Some ministers are happy to be in office, get ministerial jag and not really do anything with their job. That doesn't describe Gove's record - I've said before but I think his education reforms are the only bit of Cameron's agenda that hasn't been reversed or planned to be reversed and even Labour aren't planning to overhaul them.

Reading it a bit closer I recant it sounding good. It's not regional devolution so much as potentially culture warry country vs city stuff.
I can see a case for very definite rural "mayors" in a few select extremely rural parts of the country but in other cases there is common sense in having a city focused country.
For instance the Highlands - sure. Definitely. Rural focus.
North Yorkshire on the other hand? They should be looking towards the surrounding major cities.

If you're devolving power is the big idea then doesn't everyone have a right to devolved power not just major urban areas. I don't think the people of North Yorkshire should just be told that their job is to support the cities in their area.

They should have the same ability and rights as the Metro-Mayors which is limited but you see the effects - for example the Manchester cut in rough sleeping, the Transport for Greater Manchester, metro-area wide development plans/planning rules etc. I don't see why any of that should be the preserve of metropolitan/urban areas - those are all issues in the countryside too (I'd actually argue that public transport is an even bigger issue in the countryside).

[Josquius]

If you're devolving power is the big idea then doesn't everyone have a right to devolved power not just major urban areas. I don't think the people of North Yorkshire should just be told that their job is to support the cities in their area.

They should have the same ability and rights as the Metro-Mayors which is limited but you see the effects - for example the Manchester cut in rough sleeping, the Transport for Greater Manchester, metro-area wide development plans/planning rules etc. I don't see why any of that should be the preserve of metropolitan/urban areas - those are all issues in the countryside too (I'd actually argue that public transport is an even bigger issue in the countryside).

Really power shoukd be devolved on regional lines. All Yorkshire as one, all the North East as one, etc...
That's not the path awe are taking though and we are following city regions.
In this it just makes sense for rural Northumberland to be part of the same city region as their regions central city. Same too for others. Economic geography does revolve around cities.
People in the outer small towns deserve a say in how the regions are governed but they're built around cities nonetheless.
Hyper cut them up into smaller and smaller regions with rural places seperate to the cities then it just loses all purpose. We are turning back the clock to before the rationalisation of counties in the 70s which will make reactionaries happy but be an absolute nightmare for a functional country.

[Sheilbh]

I thought you hated the 1970s Local Government Act?

[Josquius]

I thought you hated the 1970s Local Government Act?

Not in the slightest. One of thatchers major crimes was in undoing it.
Traditional counties are fine for fluffy culturey stuff but trying to run the modern world on medieval borders is simply stupid.
The same rivers that made rational borders between the rural domains of Anglo Saxon Lords made prime arteries for urban expansion in the modern age.

[Josquius]

Away from one of Thatchers major crimes in the destruction of the metropolitan counties....

The tories are being gloriously tory.

https://out.reddit.com/t3_r9crj4?app_name=android&token=AQAA2OCsYSQ69uhr1UPhP9c5zm4vTD2iV9-CBSE8L7tsDCSWgAeH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fpassports-removed-illegal-drug-users-crime-crackdown-boris-johnson-b970082.html

Ah yes.

Step 1: Economic circumstances such that minority communities disproportionately forced to live in rough areas with drug problems
Step 2: minorities disproportionately drawn towards using drugs and other problems that strengthen 1.
Step 3: This gives perfect excuse to cut down on the amount of minorities. Keep our crack heads British!