Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

I think so far there have been zero Brexit consequences in foreign policy and I think that's probably likely to continue.

Only in your narrow view where most relations with foreign states are not foreign policy somehow.

[Josquius]

Yep. Disagree on Johnson being good at foreign policy. His key foreign policy achievements have been complete disasters. He " did" brexit worse than anyone could have ever expected. And still wants to make it worse.
Ukraine was a soft under arm bowl for him.

Although many backbenchers - even in Sunak's camp - are still learning about technology

If you don't follow UK politics at all you might think that man is rishi.
And my god has this rishi seen things. He can tell you some stories about the hidden people.

[Sheilbh]

Only in your narrow view where most relations with foreign states are not foreign policy somehow.

Not only my view - as I say I've seen people from RUSI, which is probably the most establishment and prominent foreign policy thinktank in the UK, make the same point.

It may be a different way of viewing things - I was thinking of this difference when I saw a thread by Helene von Bismarck (in English) about her article on UK Ukraine policy (in German), in particular this point:

Helene von Bismarck
@HeleneBismarck
Britain's support for Ukraine runs deep, and to understand it, one has to look beyond the statements of politicians. UK has a foreign and security establishment that is used to thinking strategically &acknowledging geopolitical realities, at least where Russia is concerned./8

I think our understanding generally from think-tanks to government to common usage is that foreign policy = foreign and security issues and geopolitics. It's about international alliances, relationships and war and peace - because those things ar still risks.

I think that is right. There are foreign policy angles to trade, economic or climate policy - but we shouldn't mix them all up together. Russia is hostile, China is a threat - it doesn't matter that we need to work with them to an extent (which should be shaped by the foreign and security analysis) on trade, economics, climate etc we do to the extent we can while hardening other buts of the state based on that foreign policy analysis. I think there is a risk that making those areas also foreign policy that they start to override that strategic analysis. It's certainly not the approach that those countries are taking when they are dealing with the west.

[Jacob]

It certainly seems that Germany views "foreign policy" as "trade and international co-operation" while pretending that things like strategic competition and conflict and security are appendages that just kind of work themselves out if trade and agreements are squared away.

[Sheilbh]

Not just a German thing either. The Cameron era basically viewed it as just part of economic policy - every visit by the PM or FM would have a huge trade delegation from industry to sign deals (which still happens but more with friendly countries).

And there was the strategic incoherence of doing big events with the Japanese and Filipinos, followed by announcing a "Golden Century" with China. Which prompted bafflement, particularly from the Japanese government. But for Cameron and Osborne it was all always about economics and trade.

I'd note that now the Japanese government are very keen on the UK's stance and approach in the region - which I think is really positive because they're an ally/very friendly country.

Edit: Incidentally one of the reasons I'm pretty supportive of the UK Indo-Pacific tilt and think it is useful is how warmly the Japanese government has welcomed it.

[Sheilbh]

Yep. Disagree on Johnson being good at foreign policy. His key foreign policy achievements have been complete disasters. He " did" brexit worse than anyone could have ever expected. And still wants to make it worse.
Ukraine was a soft under arm bowl for him.

Maybe on Ukraine - but he did it. Similarly with the shift on China and hardening our position in relation to China (in particular Chinese investment into UK infrastructure/on-shoring or "friend-shoring" key supply chains for the NHS etc). Plus I think the route for Hong Kongers is one of the best things the British state has done in years - we've opened a way for five million people to get out of a creeping authoritarian state if they want without having to wait for persecution. I hope whoever succeeds him keeps those policies.

If you don't follow UK politics at all you might think that man is rishi.
And my god has this rishi seen things. He can tell you some stories about the hidden people.

He has the look of a man caught in the fridge having a midnight snack.

[crazy canuck]

It would be completely inconceivable that someone from the House of Lords would be appointed.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/direct-ministerial-appointments-house-lords

Pretty sure CC is speaking of Canada. And I don't think Canada would appoint someone from the House of Lords.

We are speaking in the Brexit/UK thread, and cc has a long history of speaking out of his ass, so...

Sorry, you were talking about Senate appointees in the same sentence, so I assumed you were talking about how things work in Canada.

I also referenced how things work under the Canadian Constitution, so it was a bit odd that you tried to correct me with a reference to how tings work in the UK.

You're just amazing cc.

Here's the initial exchange:

One small quibble - it is possible to have ministers who are not also MPs.  It is rare, but it does happen.  For example, if a party elects no MPs from a particular region, it can be good politics to appoint an non MP from that region to cabinet.

A cabinet member can be appointed from the Canadian Senate / UK House of Lords, but that's far different from saying 'a non MP'.  A Prime Minister can't just appoint anyone off the street to cabinet.

There's nothing to suggest you were talking about solely under the Canadian constitution.  This is the Brexit/UK thread after all.  And I expressly referenced the UK House of Lords, so obviously I was talking about the UK (since it would be absurd for a UK Lord to be appointed to the Canadian cabinet, and since Canada doesn't have Lords).

It would be so easy for you to say "huh - I didn't know sometimes Lords could be made cabinet members.  Interesting".  But you're just incapable of doing so.

At this point I enjoy tweaking you on making minor errors on Languish.  Not because they're important (they are, after all, minor errors).  But because you can never admit that they're errors.

You're amazing BB.

Did you not include the material posts on purpose or was it just you being sloppy.

[Jacob]

BB, CC literally wrote "the Constitution Act 1982 does not contain the language you suggest" two sentences before making the statement about House of Lords members never being given ministerial posts. In the same paragraph. Seemed pretty clear to me.

[Sheilbh]

This feels like it's going to be an interesting contest

Sebastian Payne
@SebastianEPayne
NEW: Boris Johnson allies are gunning to stop Rishi Sunak becoming prime minister.

Close allies of Johnson said there was "huge anger" in Downing Street over Sunak's resignation.

One senior No10 official called Sunak "a treacherous bastard"

I think we'll have Johnson's allies trying to run an "anyone but Rishi" campaign, with other running an "anyone but Truss" campaign and things might get very messy.

Already really enjoying the blue-on-blue of Rees-Mogg saying Sunak was an unsuccessful, high-tax chancellor who didn't know how to grow the economy and described him as "the much-lamented socialist chancellor". They were, of course, in the cabinet together for two years

[Jacob]

What are Rinse-Moog's prospects after Johnson?

[Sheilbh]

He is very unlikely to ever be in the cabinet again.

It depends who the Tories elect as leader but, in general, they'll pick the person they think most likely to win the next election who is very unlikely to want Rees-Mogg anywhere near them.

[Sheilbh]

Already seeing some stuff about Sunak from people on the left that is frankly: yikes

I feel like Labour/the British left could perhaps do with a bit more self-reflection about why the Tories have had two female leaders/PMs and are quite possibly about to have the first non-white (and Hindu) leader and PM, and a bit less exploring some of the avenues I'm seeing people go down.

I think Starmer and the leadership are sensible enough to get this - but I think the discourse might get pretty problematic.

[alfred russel]

I assume that it is unlikely Boris will be out by the end of August if he sticks around until a new leader is chosen?

[Sheilbh]

I assume that it is unlikely Boris will be out by the end of August if he sticks around until a new leader is chosen?

It's a bit up in the air - the new 1922 Committee (elected on Monday) will decide the schedule/timing. From the reports though they want to move quickly so at least two rounds of MPs votes by the end of next week. They'll probably want the MPs round finished before the summer recess (21 July) and they may do it quicker.

After that it's likely that the membership round between the final two will be 6-8 weeks.

That assumes Johnson stays in place though. There are still stories dropping, he's appointed some genuinely extaordinary ministers today (who'll get a lovely bonus when they're fired). Plus given the "snake" briefing when he fired Gove and the anti-Sunak stuff it's quite possible the Tories decide he's hurting them, in which case they may force him out even earlier - especially as Dominic Raab has announced he isn't running for leader so is a plausibe temporary PM. They won't want to because it's not a great look, but it depends on how the politics is for the Tories.

[Josquius]

Things are looking good for democracy in the future. After the tuc supporting vote reform here comes Andy Burnham too

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/25/why-its-time-for-labour-to-back-proportional-representation


And the right wing response

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10992905/PETER-HITCHENS-election-proper-British-poll-ever.html?ito=email_share_article-top.html


Maybe there's hope for this one where av failed with it being the same thing for the voters and no confusing numbers to worry about?