Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I remember May's visit to Trump, the British press was clearly expecting her to tell him off and set him straight.

I don't often think this with May's (or Truss') premiership but I do think there was a pretty suspect double standard of the coverage she got for basically trying to charm Trump v, say, Macron or Trudeau doing the exact same thing at the exact same time - or Starmer trying it now.

It also always makes me think of the Bertrand Russell and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 50s who were in many ways the last imperialists in their vision of British power. They were absolutely convinced that if Britain unilaterally disarmed the moral force of that would be so strong it would somehow convince/compel the Americans and Soviets (under Stalin!) that they should also disarm. High-minded, admirable, utterly delusional

[Gups]

I remember May's visit to Trump, the British press was clearly expecting her to tell him off and set him straight.

I don't often think this with May's (or Truss') premiership but I do think there was a pretty suspect double standard of the coverage she got for basically trying to charm Trump v, say, Macron or Trudeau doing the exact same thing at the exact same time - or Starmer trying it now.

It also always makes me think of the Bertrand Russell and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 50s who were in many ways the last imperialists in their vision of British power. They were absolutely convinced that if Britain unilaterally disarmed the moral force of that would be so strong it would somehow convince/compel the Americans and Soviets (under Stalin!) that they should also disarm. High-minded, admirable, utterly delusional

That view was still the  justification for CND in the 1980s. It's still be used for arguing that Britain should aim to achieve net zero in advance of other countries.

[Richard Hakluyt]

i think Brits tend to have a really bad idea of the importance of the UK. They seem to wobble between it being a no-account small country or having the whole world agog at our every move we are that IMPORTANT. It is utterly ridiculous.

[Gups]

So true.

[Grey Fox]

i think Brits tend to have a really bad idea of the importance of the UK. They seem to wobble between it being a no-account small country or having the whole world agog at our every move we are that IMPORTANT. It is utterly ridiculous.

To be fair, the world is also unsure of it. Russia still thinks the UK runs everything. The USA still, from time to time, look up to the UK for advice.

[Sheilbh]

i think Brits tend to have a really bad idea of the importance of the UK. They seem to wobble between it being a no-account small country or having the whole world agog at our every move we are that IMPORTANT. It is utterly ridiculous.

Totally agree. It's so annoying And I think it is part of the net zero discourse in this country.

I also think it's there in aid. I totally support meeting the 0.7% target - I know people who work in international development who say DfID was genuinely a big player and very respected within the aid world (in part the rabid press help because the DfID were generally really good on anti-corruption and demanding data on the impact of aid spending). I think it is something we should do because it is the right and moral thing to do.

But when I hear people saying how important it is to our soft power, I just think that's bollocks. Until 2020 we were one of about 5 countries that actually met the 0.7% target - I don't think it had any impact on how the UK was perceived internationally or our "power" overseas. We should do it because it's right and our spending was very effective at helping the poorest people in the world, but we shouldn't pretend that we're an "aid superpower" or that that really matters.

I think it's also tied to the deep discomfort with the country we actually are. We're the world's second largest exporters of services. We're really good at services, we have a number of really good research universities, very vibrant (and exportable) culture sector and some areas of tech which are really really strong. Plus we speak English which is helpful. The right hates the universities and the culture sector (mutual), the left is uncomfortable with the professional and financial services, everyone would rather we were Germany with a Mittelstand of widget makers. And often it feels like the government (both Tory and Labour) are making policy for the country they wish we were rather than embracing what modern Britain is. (Again I really, really hope the government is considering how to make a big pitch to American academia with all of the political interference going on over there with Columbia etc.)

So I think this cuts across the political spectrum in different ways. For example, I always feel it's very weird that often quite progressive people who think Britain needs to confront its imperial history and adjust to its (often in their view very) diminished place in the world are also the people who believe Britain's moral example on arms, net zero, aid can somehow lead the world. Now God loves the penitent but part of my read of Britain's imperial history is that we're probably not best placed to give the world moral lectures

I should say I think John Bew's strategic review was broadly right and very sensible and grounded. Labour are getting their own because it was for the last government - I'd hope and expect that there's a lot of overlap with what Lord Robertson produces. But I'm also not sure the Tories in office were particularly guided by it and I do worry the trend of us writing cheques we can't back isn't going to stop. I really worry that we've made commitments to Ukraine that we won't be able to follow through on - it might feel good to make those commitments at the time but I think it'll be shameful if we're not actually able to deliver.

[Josquius]

But when I hear people saying how important it is to our soft power, I just think that's bollocks. Until 2020 we were one of about 5 countries that actually met the 0.7% target - I don't think it had any impact on how the UK was perceived internationally or our "power" overseas. We should do it because it's right and our spending was very effective at helping the poorest people in the world, but we shouldn't pretend that we're an "aid superpower" or that that really matters.

I'm not so sure here.
It might not mean anything to the man on the streets of Lagos or wherever, but aid does help with building relations with governments in these developing countries.
Then there's the British council, BBC worldwide, etc... stuff which absolutely does hit lower levels

So I think this cuts across the political spectrum in different ways. For example, I always feel it's very weird that often quite progressive people who think Britain needs to confront its imperial history and adjust to its (often in their view very) diminished place in the world are also the people who believe Britain's moral example on arms, net zero, aid can somehow lead the world.

I guess to consider the Scandinavians aren't exactly global superpowers, considerably smaller than the UK, but they certainly manage to set moral, proper way to go about things, examples at times.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not so sure here.
It might not mean anything to the man on the streets of Lagos or wherever, but aid does help with building relations with governments in these developing countries.

I don't think it does massively. Certainly I'd say there have been many examples where countries we're majorly involved with from a development perspective but are not particularly helpful in, for example, UN votes on things the UK government is pushing. It's why I think we need to de-couple it from any question of power because I don't really think it delivers that.

Or the way the UK (and West more broadly) does it, doesn't tie to power. Again thinking of conversations I've had with people in that sector part of the reason China does get leverage is it's tied to their economic interests but they basically say "what physical infrastructure do you need to help us get x" and then build that road/airport/dock/railway line. From what I've heard the impression from especially African countries is that Western aid agencies are more likely to have ideas - often tied to the politics of their home country - of what they should be doing and then quite prescriptive in how to do it.

Then there's the British council, BBC worldwide, etc... stuff which absolutely does hit lower levels

Totally agree on the World Service and British Council. My argument isn't that "soft power" doesn't exist but I think it's a reflection of quite hard, material facts not trying to set an example. Those work because (and to the extent they're funded), same with our universities and our economy making people want to come here and that giving a cultural influence.

I don't think anyone cares that the UK hits its UN aid target - or sets itself particularly stretching net zero targets.

I guess to consider the Scandinavians aren't exactly global superpowers, considerably smaller than the UK, but they certainly manage to set moral, proper way to go about things, examples at times.

Yeah I think my point there was more that having spent four hundred years looting and enslaving large chunks of the world (often with the deeply believed moral cant of Victorian Christianity), that our capacity to have a moral leadership role is possibly a little diminished.

I think realistically we should be looking more at countries like France and Turkey than Scandinavia. On that I'd add that speaking to someone who's worked in a lot of regions that his impression is the UK is very thinly spread jam - it tries to have a presence doing everything everywhere and, for that reason, is often relatively ineffective. He compared it with the French who he said are basically invisible in a country they don't consider strategic to them, but really heavily invested if they think a place matters. That sounds believable just looking at the rest of the British state