Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Another sexual harassment story - handled pretty badly by the SNP, not for the first time given their behaviour around Alex Salmond. Letting this guy lead a debate on bullying and harassment by MPs is particularly odd.

And again - as with a number of these stories in the UK - it's young men getting preyed on by older MPs (mainly but not always gay men) with power which I think is something that needs investigating and thinking about whether there are other/different measures that need to be introduced to make it a safer workplace. It feels like it's really important that policies make it clear this can happen to anyone and complaints or other resources are open to all staff. Westminster is very gay so that might be a part of it but it seems unusual compared to other institutions that have had harassment and me too issues:

SNP sexual harassment MP Patrick Grady was put on conduct training and allowed to remain as Chief Whip
EXCLUSIVE: Grady was also allowed to lead for the SNP in a debate on the harassment of staff after his inappropriate behaviour towards a party employee was handled internally
ByPaul HutcheonPolitical Editor, Daily Record
    04:30, 10 MAY 2022Updated04:31, 10 MAY 2022

An SNP MP found guilty of sexual harassment was put on "conduct training" four years ago over the same incident and kept his job as Chief Whip.

Allegations against Patrick Grady were initially dealt with informally by the SNP and he later fronted a Westminster debate on the harassment of staff.

Lib Dem Alistair Carmichael MP said: "It is the height of hypocrisy for the SNP to have conducted an informal investigation, covered up the result and then allowed the perpetrator to lead for the party on debates about the bullying of staff."

As revealed by the Record, an SNP staffer claimed the Glasgow North MP had put his fingers down the back of his collar and touched his hair in London's Water Poet bar in 2016 when he was 19.

A formal complaint to Westminster authorities has reportedly been upheld and referred to an independent panel. Grady stood aside as Chief Whip when the allegations emerged.

The staffer claimed the SNP tried to resolve the matter informally at a meeting he attended with a tearful Grady and party Westminster leader Ian Blackford.

The complainer said Grady apologised at the time, but added: "I wouldn't view this as mediation – I would view it as ambush."

The Record understands Grady took part in a behaviour-related training course after the so-called "ambush" meeting in 2018.

But he stayed in post as the SNP's discipline enforcer, stood again at the 2019 general election and was later elected to a wider party role.

Grady also made a speech on a report on the bullying and harassment of MPs' staff after the incident with the staffer.

In the Commons in July 2019, he said MPs' should not be "blind" to the "occasional possibility of vexatious or malicious complaints."

He said of the report: "Sadly, it contains accounts of behaviours that many of us will have heard about and perhaps some of us will have witnessed.

"Bullying, harassment, and a toxic culture of insecurity and under-mining have been found to be commonplace, and they are all perhaps manifestations of deeper-rooted cultures and behaviours associated with the abuse of power."

He also said: "Perhaps, on reflection, some of us will recognise our own behaviours."

Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie said these "astonishing revelations" raise "deeply worrying questions."

She said: "Even now, the SNP seem desperate to turn a blind eye to the allegations against Grady and continue as normal.

Tory MSP Annie Wells said: "The brave complainer who came forward in this case will be in total despair as to how the SNP have handled it. It looks more like a cover-up with each revelation that emerges.

"From the outset, there has been a failure by the SNP to be transparent, whether to the complainer or the wider public.

"Urgent answers must be given by the SNP as to why they have kept crucial details of this case hidden for so long."

An SNP spokesperson said: "It would not be legally appropriate to comment while the independent parliamentary process is ongoing."

And the background from the Record:

How the Daily Record broke the original story

Our front page exclusive in March last year told of how a young SNP staffer at Westminster had made complaints of sexual harassment against two MPs.

He alleged that one MP, later revealed to be the then chief whip Patrick Grady, had touched him inappropriately as a 19 year old in London's Water Poet bar in 2016.

He also alleged another MP had pestered him in Westminster's Strangers' Bar in January 2020.

Patricia Gibson, who represents North Ayrshire and Arran, is the MP at the centre of the latter claims, which she denies. She continues to serve on SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford's front bench.

The staffer had told us of the Grady incident: "I was sitting on a couch speaking with colleagues and he perched himself on the side of the couch.

"At that point, he started putting his fingers down the back of my collar, touching me inappropriately there. He was also grabbing my hair."

The story sent shockwaves around Westminster and led to Grady, who represents Glasgow North East, stepping aside as chief whip.

The staffer is believed to have made complaints through Westminster's independent complaints and grievance scheme.

According to the Sunday Times, complaints of sexual harassment against the two MPs have been upheld by a Westminster authority and referred to an independent expert panel.

Edit: It feels like at a least both Grady and Gibson should be suspended from the SNP pending the conclusion of the investigation - if, as reported, the complaints have been upheld.

[Sheilbh]

Prince Charles (and Sunak) were visiting a youth employment scheme in my neighbourhood today - and I think the local council press team will probably never invite them again. From the Times:

Christine Davis, 70, said on learning that Charles was about to turn up: "Oh my God, he is not going to visit Shit Street? That's embarrassing. It's one of the worst markets in London. And I used to have a stall here."

Edit: Although, she's not wrong. It is not a great market

[Syt]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-11/eu-ready-to-suspend-uk-trade-deal-if-johnson-revokes-ni-protocol

EU Ready to Suspend Trade Deal If UK Revokes NI Protocol

UK's Truss says government won't 'shy away' from taking action
UK move would risk a trade war with the European Union

The European Union would likely move quickly to launch infringement procedures against the UK and suspend their trade agreement if Boris Johnson's government puts forward legislation to revoke its commitments over trade with Northern Ireland, a person familiar with the matter said.

As well as freezing the privileged access that UK companies have to the EU single market, the bloc would also halt talks over the status of Gibraltar, the person said, asking not to be identified commenting on private discussions.

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm in Brussels, would be responsible for recommending a course of action while the final decision on the details and timing of any measures would need the backing of member states.

The threat illustrates what's at stake after UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss on Tuesday night said the EU's latest proposals on trading arrangements won't work, signaling she's prepared to take unilateral steps unless a new agreement can be negotiated. A suspension of the trade deal would effectively mean a return of the "no-deal Brexit" the accord was meant to avoid.

The government "will not shy away from taking action to stabilize the situation in Northern Ireland if solutions cannot be found," Truss said in a statement. "The current EU proposals fail to properly address the real issues affecting Northern Ireland and in some cases would take us backward," she said, arguing against introducing "more checks, paperwork and disruption."

Any EU decision to retaliate would require the backing of the bloc's 27 EU governments and would lead to a cooling off period before tariffs, quotas and other barriers to trade between Britain and the EU kicked in. The EU could terminate the whole deal or target specific industries.

'Very Serious'

European Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic warned on Tuesday that the protocol is an international agreement and its "renegotiation is not an option." He said the EU has worked tirelessly to propose solutions, including easing the flow of medicines into Northern Ireland. He is set to meet Truss again Thursday.

Last year the EU paused the threat of legal action over separate breaches of the protocol to give the two sides space to negotiate.

Britain has long threatened to remove the need for checks on goods being sent from Britain to Northern Ireland by triggering Article 16, a mechanism agreed with the EU that forms part of the Brexit trade agreement. The UK argues that the protocol is disrupting trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK and jeopardizing the Good Friday Agreement which helped to end years of sectarian violence in the region.

It's that peace deal that is the "most important agreement," Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. "That is crucial for the stability of our country, the UK and Northern Ireland and that means things have got to command cross community support. Plainly the Northern Ireland protocol fails to do that and we need to sort it out."

Johnson's spokesman, Max Blain, told reporters the government has made no decision on how to proceed.

'Grossly Irresponsible'

Tensions over the protocol are threatening the viability of the power-sharing government established by the 1998 peace deal. Under the model, the first minister and deputy first minister have equal powers and one cannot be in place without the other. Effectively, one must be a unionist and the other a nationalist.

But now, the Democratic Unionist Party, which came second to the nationalists Sinn Fein in last week's Assembly elections, has said it won't nominate a deputy first minister until "decisive action" is taken over the Brexit deal.

With discussions at an apparent impasse, the Times of London reported Tuesday that Truss has drafted legislation to unilaterally scrap large parts of the deal after losing faith in the negotiations. That would be a more dramatic move than triggering Article 16 and would likely prompt a more severe reaction from the EU. It would also face domestic opposition.

"If any of this becomes reality over the coming days and weeks, it would be a grossly irresponsible act on the part of the UK government," Stephen Farry, deputy leader of the Alliance Party which came third in last week's assembly elections, told Bloomberg Radio on Wednesday. "It would do enormous damage to Northern Ireland itself, but also it would do huge damage to the UK's international relationships" with the EU and US. 

Johnson would also face opposition from within his own Conservative Party if he sought to unpick the Brexit deal through legislation. His immediate predecessor, former Prime Minister Theresa May, warned late on Tuesday in the House of Commons that the government needed to consider "what such a move would say about the United Kingdom and its willingness to abide by treaties that it has signed."

On Wednesday, Cabinet Minister Michael Gove told Sky News on Wednesday "there isn't going to be anything ripped up," before also saying "there is no option that is off the table." It's important in the talks to "always make sure that you have some cards close to your chest so that you don't reveal your hand entirely to the other side," he said.

[Sheilbh]

I could be totally wrong and made to look like a fool and the reports around this are from serious, respectable journalists who I'd trust. But (again) I still don't think it's going to happen.

All the reports this time are centred around Liz Truss - what she's decided, what legislation her officials have prepared, her statements. There is nothing that's sourced in Downing Street - and all the reports note that there's disagreements in the cabinet over it, in particular Sunak and Johnson's Chief of Staff, Steve Barclay. Maybe Truss will win the cabinet over - though I'd normally bet on the Treasury and Downing Street over any other minister.

Also, the Queen's speech included nothing on legislation about this - something very vague - but did cover other points on Northern Ireland particularly around legacy and Irish and Scots Ulster language provision. All of which from what I've read sounds in line with 2014 and 2020 agreements between the parties and the UK and Irish government (both of which required US mediation). It would seem odd to me (though I wouldn't rule it out with this government) to be moving forward on that agenda and simultaneously about to blow up the Protocol.

Crucially I think it would politically disastrous for Johnson and the Tories - that will matter to them.

The other moving part is the unionists, a majority of MLAs in Stormont and voters support the Protocol. But not a single unionist MLA does and that's an issue. Since the election I think both Micheal Martin and the leader of the Ulster Unionists have basically said that "everyone knows" what the landing zone for this is - what would basically be acceptable to enough unionists is known and, according to Martin, talked about already. They might be talking past each other but I think everyone has an idea of the shape of a deal and I certainly think Martin and liberal unionists know what they can agree.

But also politicially, from what I've read from different Northern Irish reporters - the DUP's priority is getting back to Stormont and in the Executive. I also think it's not in their interest for this to fail in the next six months and have a second election because I'm not sure they'd necessarily do better. So it is in their interests to do a deal - if they can claim a victory or there's some way for them to save face because, bluntly, they went in saying the entire protocol needs to be scrapped immediately. We're now - where I thought we'd always get - which is that there's a landing area about how the protocol operates in practice that the DUP can now accept. It's a hell of a climbdown and why they'll be difficult until it's al agreed.

An early sign that I'm totally wrong on the DUP is the Stormont election of a speaker which has to happen within a week. If the DUP don't participate, there isn't a cross-community vote and there's no Stormont Assembly (but the executive can run on in an acting capacity for six months). Traditional Unionist Voice are pushing for the DUP to block it in typically strident fashion. If they block the nomination of a speaker then basically TUV are running the DUP and everything's fucked. My own guess is that they'll nominate a speaker, there's six months to nominate an executive - based on every other negotiation in Northern Irish history I don't think there'll be an agreement until the week of that deadline. But again, from what I've read, it is in the DUP's interests to get this done quickly so maybe not this time.

I think the US is also planning to appoint a special envoy to Northern Ireland which I think would be incredibly helpful though I imagine the UK government (and possibly the EU) would not be thrilled at the US asking to have meetings. They always take a little time to win trust from the unionists, but they normally do and almost any breakthrough in Northern Ireland in the last 30 years has needed US involvement. There's not been a good one since 2008 and the last one was Mick Mulvaney But Mitchell and Haass were incredible and Haass was still being used even though he wasn't an official envoy ten years later helping broker talks between the parties on flags and parades etc.

[Zanza]

One reason the Tories might do it:

Northern Irish economy outperforming UK thanks to Brexit protocol: Experts
National Institute of Economic and Social Research says freedom to trade barrier-free with EU has 'benefitted Northern Ireland post-Brexit.'

BELFAST — The post-Brexit trade protocol is helping, not hurting, growth and profitability in Northern Ireland because of its advantageous access to EU markets, according to a British economic think tank.

Wednesday's findings from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research pour cold water on Conservative and Democratic Unionist claims that the protocol's requirement for EU checks on British goods arriving in Northern Ireland has undermined business opportunities.

As part of its latest quarterly report on the U.K.'s economic outlook, the London-based research group says available data shows the reverse is true. It says Northern Ireland's economic output "has slightly outperformed the U.K. average."

https://www.politico.eu/article/experts-brexit-protocol-is-boosting-northern-ireland-economy/

[The Larch]

freedom to trade barrier-free with EU has 'benefitted Northern Ireland

Who would have thought? 

[Josquius]

 Not quite 1960s Sci fi level flying cars and glass sky scrapers yet but the needle is shifting just as expected.

[Sheilbh]

One reason the Tories might do it:

But I think it's the same issue. Most people in GB are ignorant and indifferent of Ireland, north and south. One way to get this story into wider circulation would be to focus all of British politics on Northern Ireland again.

Similarly I just don't see the political upside for a party that campaign on getting Brexit done, whose main achievement despite having an 80 seat majority was getting Brexit done, turning round 3 years into their term and telling people it was not, in fact, done.

And Jos's point on this is always right there was a huge Corbyn factor, but the Brexit angle in 2019 wasn't enthusiasm for Johnson but he said he'd do it and not re-open negotiations and move onto another round. People wanted to move on and stop being divided and stop caring about it. They won't take well to being told it's back. Now obviously it never away in Northern Ireland - but again that reflects the different political culture but also GB's ignorance and indifference.

Who would have thought? 

Not the first report on this either. And frankly there is no part of the country that deserves to overperform and succeed economically as much as Northern Ireland.

Although only "slightly" overperforming reinforces my view that while Brexit and EU membership matter, but not vastly (and - again in the honest campaigining and politics - far less than the Remain campaign argued). They're a nudging up of economic trajectory. That will intensify as the EU integrates more - especially if there's more of a single market in services.

But there's not much fixed about this and it's now for British governments to actually try and shape their economic policy - if they're still capable of that.

[Tamas]

I think another stamp duty holiday or some other government spending to keep property prices rising will be soon needed to maintain the illusion of a growing economy:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/12/a-uk-recession-seems-certain-the-only-question-is-how-deep

Kristin Forbes, the former Bank of England policymaker, told MPs on the Treasury select committee on Wednesday that the UK found itself in a bad place at the moment.

If a country has higher energy prices, a falling exchange rate, trade restrictions that push up goods prices, expectations among businesses and consumers of much higher inflation in a year's time and a tight labour market – forcing wages higher, though not as high as inflation – the outlook is especially tough. Add into the mix a decade of modest inflation going into the pandemic, which most other countries have not had, pointing to a lack of underlying inflation in their economies, and you have an even worse situation.


"The UK is the only country to tick every box," Forbes said.

Making matters worse, business investment remains 9.1% below its pre-pandemic level, despite a huge tax incentive to buy new equipment, and the trade deficit has widened again.

[Sheilbh]

I think another stamp duty holiday or some other government spending to keep property prices rising will be soon needed to maintain the illusion of a growing economy:

Saw a meme on Twitter I think from the US about housing, but I think it applies to the UK too.

Can we remove supply constraints? Best I can do is subsidise demand.

It feels like we're in that cycle across the economy on lots of issues. I've said it before but I think it's as big a rent-seeking problem as the unions were by the seventies and if we don't get modest reform now we're going to get worse and worse, until there's a Thatcher elected to smash it.

Edit: And to be clear I'm very supportive of Labour - but no party that I can see has anything like a set of solutions to what, I think, are overwhelmingly supply issues in the British economy. It feels like they all have an analysis that is more or less pointing in the right direction but none of them are willing to actually follow through on it with any policy ideas yet because they might be unpopular. That might be a silver-lining if Starmer is forced to resign that a new Labour leader might be bolder on this front.

[Josquius]

On the other hand great ideas that don't get labour into power just takes us back to square Corbyn. With the nimby stuff for example they are quite politically obliged to walk the line.

The stamp duty holiday was massively counter productive as this just helped people higher up the latter to get more. Already it was irrelevant to most first time buyers.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally, Economist interview with Johnson on Ukraine and NATO etc. Matt Holehouse pointed out: "Ukraine highlights the strange duality of Johnson. On the domestic front, he can be sometimes clownish and increasingly timid in policy. But abroad, there's an undeniable boldness and clarity of analysis."

I'd go further than he did. I think it's an incredibly poor and incompetent government domestically with zero policy ideas, of which they've implemented none. But there is a clarity to their foreign policy analysis - and actions to back it - and on Ukraine, Belarus, Hong Kong, China, AUKUS I think they've weirdly been a pretty good foreign policy government. And I basically agree with what he's saying and the way he's saying it here. I don't really know how to explain how they can be so shit domestically and basically very solid on foreign policy:

Boris Johnson on Europe and the war in Ukraine
The transcript of an interview with the British prime minister
May 12th 2022

ON MAY 11TH Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, visited Magdalena Andersson, the prime minister of Sweden, and Sauli Niinistö, the president of Finland, to sign new declarations of mutual defence aid in the event of an attack or a natural disaster. The declarations come as both Nordic states move swiftly towards NATO membership, an aftershock of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. On the return flight to London, Mr Johnson spoke to The Economist about his government's response to the war. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Boris Johnson: It was an amazing place, Harpsund [the Swedish prime minister's residence]. Look, I think it's been an important day because what we have done has cemented something that should really be implicit, which is that the UK and Sweden, the UK and Finland, are close friends and partners, and in the event of an attack on either of them, it's almost unimaginable the UK wouldn't come to their assistance in one way or another. But we've never said it before. We've never formalised it before, in a solemn declaration as we have today.

I think the fact that two traditionally proud, neutral countries, are moving as they so clearly are in the direction of a much clearer alignment is a sign of how fatally badly Vladimir Putin has miscalculated about Ukraine. This is not something, not an outcome that we wanted last year, it's not something that we've been campaigning for, we always understood the logic of the Swedish and the Finnish position, but frankly we see the logic of the change in their position today. Because there was every reason to think that a common-sensical Kremlin would not launch an attack on an innocent, democratic country.

The Economist: Give me a sense of your discussion in the rooms with the prime minister and the president of what this means in terms of British commitments going forward.

BJ: What you have to understand, and I'm sure you know this very well, the UK already has a long history, particularly over recent years, of military and security co-operation with both those partners, particularly in the context of the Joint Expeditionary Force, which has been a really important innovation. The UK leads it, but with the Nordics, the Balts, the Dutch, we have a great partnership. It's a great group and we do a lot of things together. So building on the two solemn declarations, we want to be more in the areas that I mentioned in the press conferences and that is what we discussed in the bilats. It's intelligence sharing, it's defence-procurement co-operation, it's joint exercises, working together on cyber and so on.

There is a very big shared agenda, but there is no doubt that it has been given a new urgency by what's happening in Ukraine. I meant what I said in the press conference. The invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin was a massive punctuation point in post-war history. It's the end of the easy assumptions of the post-cold-war period. We are now in a new era.

And the decisions that these friends and allies of Britain are taking—they are their decisions. I don't want to anticipate what they may do, even by your deadline. We have to respect what they are going to do. But if the direction of travel is confirmed then that would be very, very important. And it would be a complete repudiation of Putin's assumptions. He thought he could somehow push NATO back by invading Ukraine and trying to determine the future of that country. What he has shown is NATO's open-door policy remains absolutely unchanged. Not only unchanged, but that two more countries are now going through NATO's open door.

As for the long-term future of Ukraine itself, ask a simple question. Is Ukraine now more likely or less likely to be given protections by Western countries? The answer is more likely.

TE: Do you have an idea what those protections may be?

BJ: Yes, I do. The UK has been working on this for weeks now with our friends. We believe we will get to a situation, and this is what we've been talking to the others in the Quad, the Quint, the Italians. What we want is a doctrine of deterrence by denial. So that even without invoking the question of NATO membership, Ukraine is being given NATO-compatible weaponry, training and intelligence sharing of such quantity and quality that no-one will ever invade Ukraine again. That is a massive... That is not something you would have expected [before Russia's invasion].

TE: The foreign minister of Ukraine [Dmytro Kuleba] was talking about how their aspirations[...] how their idea of victory has changed. They are talking now about the full liberation of their country. Is that something that the UK would support, and if so what would they need to do that?

BJ: The first thing to say is we support the Ukrainians. It's not for us to judge what they may deem to be an acceptable outcome for them. I've heard Volodymyr [Zelensky] at different times give slightly different accounts of what might work. Clearly the future of Crimea is an interesting question. But, you know, let's face it, in 2014 Putin seized sovereign Ukrainian territory. So what Mr Kuleba is saying is entirely logical.

Now how do you get there? I think you have to recognise it will take further support from Ukraine's partners, and that Ukrainians are doing this for themselves. And what they have shown is by their heroic resistance and their ability to counter-attack, they can change the odds on the ground. Look, I don't think before this thing began, I don't think there were many people who knew what would happen. There weren't many people who would have been able to make proper evaluation of the willingness to fight of the Ukrainians. I always thought they would because I'd been there a few times and talked to some of the vets from Donbas. So when the invasion started to loom I thought: "Putin must be crazy. This is going to be a nightmare." But so it has proved.

TE: Are some of the UK's allies in a different space? You've warned them in the G7 not to do a bad peace. [Is Britain] an outlier in this?

BJ: No I don't think so. I think that everybody's really gone on the same intellectual journey. Everyone's begun by thinking, "It's a nightmare, it's a disaster, there must be a way out, there must be an off-ramp, there must be a face-saving formula, there must be a negotiated outcome." And everybody's trying to work out what that could be, because we all want peace.

But the difficulty is you can't see how that can be done. There's several things. Number one, Putin avowedly doesn't want it, and just keeps saying... When he is contacted about what he wants, he just sort of says he wants to, you know, take Kyiv. So Putin's not in that space.

The second thing is, the Ukrainians themselves are not in that space. Because for understandable reasons, they see, it's hard to see how they can negotiate sensibly with someone who is in the process of trying to devour their country. And I have to say I agree with them. So everyone is then forced into the same logical position, which is the only answer is to keep going until Putin is back to the status quo ante of February 24th—at least. For those who say, I saw a comment the other day that it's important that Putin should not be humiliated...

TE: That was President Macron?

BJ: I think it's also worth considering that Putin at the present time has very considerable levels of popular support for what he is doing. He has a great deal of political space to accept and to explain away an outcome that frankly we all need to see.

TE: Would the humiliation of [President Putin] be perhaps a good thing?

BJ: No, what I'm saying is that it is one of the paradoxical advantages of the situation that the strength of Putin's popular support gives him the opportunity, actually, to be completely flexible. And to say for instance that certain objectives have been achieved, "denazifaction", whatever, and that's why the operation is over.

TE: Can you see a way out of this terrible blockade of grain at Ukrainian ports?

BJ: We are looking at that. [...] We are looking at the grain blockade and what we can do to help.

TE: Can I ask about your idea of Britain within Europe? We've left the EU. The constellation has changed. Britain is clearly very active in NATO and bilaterally. You chose not have a security treaty with the EU during the Brexit negotiations. How does that look in the light of Ukraine? Is that validated?

BJ: I think most fair-minded observers would say that after some sort of initial anxieties and hesitations, an independent UK foreign policy has really been important. I think that our ability to take decisions at speed, to be out in front, to campaign for outcomes that we want, that we are right, has been very valuable. That doesn't mean that at the same time we haven't been working very, very closely with our European friends—we have. We have. But, I think it has given—you can feel it, you can sense the way that people look to and respond to the UK, whether it's in the Nordics, the Baltics, or the Balkans, or Ukraine.

TE: This idea of being first to walk around Kyiv, the first to give a speech at the Rada [Ukraine's parliament], that's an important part of..?

BJ: Yes. I think we are able to give a lead in a different way. But I wouldn't want to stress that to the exclusion of the incredibly valuable co-operation that we do with others. Other countries have also done their own remarkable things. What Olaf Scholz did on the defence budget in Germany was absolutely astonishing. What Sweden and Finland are doing is astonishing. Across the board we see countries rising to the challenge and we are pleased to be a part of that.

TE: Thank you, prime minister.

I think the point on Putin having domestic political space is really key. I think it's totally right that it is still entirely within his control. There's more constraints on Zelensky because of Ukraine's relative success and we need to be mindful of making sure he saves face as much as we do Putin.

[Tamas]

The stamp duty holiday was massively counter productive as this just helped people higher up the latter to get more. Already it was irrelevant to most first time buyers.

You are of course right except it was only counterproductive if its true aim was not to support those with money to invest in extra properties.

[Sheilbh]

@Sheilbh: Do you - as you usually do - limit yourself to defense and security policy when you talk about foreign policy?

If not, you may have missed a gigantic foreign policy failure Johnson and his two predecessors committed...

Yeah, basically. International development/aid, diplomacy and defence - what is a country's approach to the world and strategy (if there is one). That to me is how you judge any leader on whether their administration had a good foreign policy or not.

I agree all domestic policy areas have an international element - I just don't think I'd describe all of that as foreign policy unless it ties into a broader issue. I think that's just a fact of modern government - just as, increasingly, all areas of policy have climate/net zero considerations and equalities considerations. But I don't think that necessarily means they're all climate policies. Similarly they will all do an economic cost/benefit analysis - but again I don't think that makes all policy economic policy. Climate, international cooperation, equalities, economic impact are all factors in policies across government - but they're not the driver or the purpose of those policies. I think it's less that everything is foreign policy if there's an international element and more that all government is increasingly (I genuinely can't think of a better word ) inter-disciplinary.

So, for example, I wouldn't necessarily view a climate summit as foreign policy (although it may be for certain countries - if it's a priority) - I think that's international energy policy and those are the civil servants and ministers who'll be working on the policies involved and the country's strategy. Same with, for example, the various ministerial councils in the EU like ECOFIN - that's economic policy, not foreign policy.

And it could go the other way if a purely domestic policy that never touched a diplomat's desk has consequences on security. For example, from what I understand the policies that made Britain butler to the world's kleptocrats were very much driven by the Treasury as a purely economic policy and it was all domestic - but I think those policies are a catastrophic foreign policy (and moral) failure.

[Jacob]

Yeah, Johnson's been pretty solid on foreign policy (post Brexit).