If this article turns out to be true the UK's integrated review is heading towards an unrealistic direction that will irritate the US and China, unintentionally make the case for EU strategic autonomy, and delight Russia. 1/
Even more than in trade policy, the UK can't escape geography in defence policy. Supporting democratic countries in Asia when China is becoming assertive is morally right, but unwise without the resources to back it up 3/
With the defence budget where it is, the UK needs to concentrate on its near neighbourhood where it has important interests in protecting airspace and sea lanes from Russia and in contributing to security and CT in MENA 4/
It can in particular make a hugely important contribution in air capacity (esp once those F35s eventually arrive) and maritime missions, intelligence, and counter terrorism -- to the defence of its friends and partners in the continent in which it is situated 5/
6/ But this is going to be too expensive if it devotes resources to Asia, where forces will be at huge distances from home bases and likely far more expensive to sustain.
7/ This will reduce their effectiveness in supporting Asian democracies, something that can be done more easily by the rich democracies there (with US support)
8/ It is hard to see a military effort (as opposed to diplomatic support, which includes defence diplomacy in my mind ) focused on Asia making much of a difference to China when more effective things can be done to counter Chinese influence
9/ The United States, would prefer the UK to play a role defending its own region, where it can make a difference. This will raise further questions about British credibility in Washington.
10/ Finally, in the debates about strategic autonomy, one of the arguments against having stronger EU structures is a need to interoperate with the Brits. If the UK focuses on Asia, this argument weakens.
11/Traditionally, the UK has tried to avoid the building up of such a European pillar, so it would be ironic to say the least, if the shift to Asia strengthened the case for its development. ENDs
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Biden will win this, but there are sobering lessons for the opponents of national populism. Thread.
1/ National populist candidates have appeal across different countries, and ethnic groups. They’re dangerous, and they’re not going away.
2/ They appeal to their voters in a genuine way, not only because of propaganda and disinformation. Voting for these candidates meets a need, and isn’t because people have been fooled.
Then we see that the Polish government’s anti-abortion cursade is failing - driving votes to the new Polska 2050 Party. And remember the far-right thugs outside Polish churches? They don’t need defending says the head of the Polish episcopate. Thanks @MaZaborowski
As another week of negotiations of rule of law conditionality opens, Hungary’s still applying the anti-NGO law that was struck down by @EUCourtPress — to funding from the EU’s own ErasmusPlus!
.@SuellaBraverman asserts that parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament is free to disapply treaties. This is not correct. If it were, as I explain in @ConHome today, the government would actually not have the power to make treaties. Thread.
1/ This has to do with the concept of a binding obligation, and the correlative right to enforce (or waive) that obligation.
2/ If the treaty contains a binding obligation one one party, it means the other party has the right to demand the obligation is performed, and hence the power to waive or enforce the obligation.
Before the referendum I wrote that a vote to Leave would turn Britain into Argentina, with Peronist politics, a volatile currency, leading to long term relative economic decline. 1/
It’s too early to judge the long term economic effects, but here are some straws in the wind 2/
Peronist politics: a politics where a self-dealing traditional elite uses the politics of resentment against a cultural elite to win over working class voters 2/
The governments of Poland and Hungary are deliberately misrepresenting the German Constitutional Court’s judgement on the ECB to bolster their attacks on the EU’s legal order.
Rather than repeat their propaganda, it is important to understand why it’s misleading. THREAD
1/ HU and PL are asserting that it shows that member states can individually decide the applicability of EU law on the grounds that member state constitutional law is superior to EU law (even if EU law is superior to ordinary national legislation)
2/ This is of course not what actually happens. The way the #BVerfG understands the situation rather is through the conferral of competences.