Not it seems a particularly productive G7 summit. That's in line with most of them to be honest. But also a lost opportunity for the Global Britain project. As has been stated so frequently there is a large chasm between UK domestic politics / media and global realities.
Global Britain is right now destined to be seen as a domestic media management project (look at how impressive we are) more than a realistic project to put the UK on a world stage (which would involve money, serious negotiation etc).
A UK-Australia trade deal doesn't change that given economic and trade insignificance. Unless taking more lamb and beef from Australia, and a few pennies off a bottle of wine, is the new definition of Global Britain.
Meanwhile on the global stage attention turns to the NATO summit, and whether that does more for US aims to build common positions against the rise of China. A challenging agenda to say the least.
NB just to give an example of the problem of Global Britain. Is the BBC (a) an institution projecting UK soft power abroad and therefore one to be cherished, or (b) a hive of leftie woke culture to be undermined and weakened?
It cannot be both.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The biggest trade news of the day (also the biggest in the UK given Airbus presence here). Interestingly not announced at the G7 but rather in Brussels (don't tell me, they were still negotiating... these decisions are made for a reason) ft.com/content/985ae1…
Context - US want to remove trade irritants with the EU to focus on China. For both EU and US there is a domestic economic focus in which China is now the enemy. But then there's a globally interlinked economy. Much to piece together. politico.eu/article/trade-…
Looking globally the UK's deal with Australia is small beer. Protectionist stances of the US and EU (towards China) and the UK (towards the EU) are more worrying. But maybe also less effective given the realities of modern global trade.
Morning. In broad terms it seems the government is announcing today that it hasn't quite finalised a trade deal with Australia.
This is regrettably normal in global trade policy terms, where the same deal can be announced several times.
Indeed one of the reasons why so many have lost faith in trade deals is the repeated announcement of completed deals of very limited benefit. And so the UK government has chosen to follow that rather dismal path.
We're not expecting too many details today about what has been agreed beyond that we know already such as tariff elimination, though from the Australian press it seems generous terms on people movement might be new.
I think a little comparison between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland may be in order, because both were widely predicted as Brexit flashpoints, but so far only one of them has been. The reasons, I believe, come down to confidence and leadership more than history. 1/n
Obviously there are similarities and differences between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. Both have sensitive borders with the EU, but Northern Ireland has the legacy of the troubles while Gibraltar is more singular in views about being British. Even so, enough to compare... 2/
In terms of the Brexit aftermath Gibraltar and Northern Ireland look similar on the surface - checks on goods coming from Great Britain, relatively open borders to the EU. But very different in the acceptance of this - Gibraltar happy, N Ireland not. Why? 3/
A splendidly clear and concise exposition of the Brexit and Northern Ireland issue. Not one suspect that this will lead to any changes of mind from those whose mind is made up to blame the EU come what may.
And you wonder if the UK government anger that led to Boris Johnson sabotaging his own summit was in large part a deflection from his own failings. theguardian.com/world/2021/jun…
I know he's a good actor but seeing this it is also possible that the PM has really not grasped that his triumphant Northern Ireland protocol actually contains within it numerous checks on trade into Northern Ireland. Oh dear.
Perhaps someone could ask the PM whether his goal for the Northern Ireland protocol is no checks at all or proportionate checks. But I don't think they would get an answer - because I don't think he knows.
The complaints about the way the EU is implementing the protocol cover up that the UK government either does not know or does not want to admit how it thinks the protocol should be implemented.
Oops. I must confess to being baffled by Johnson picking a fight with the EU and US rather than presiding at his summit over a common front with regard to China. And baffled won't even start to describe what they think of him.
The EU and US get another summit next week. But this was Johnson's one go at being a host. He appears to have completely blown it in failing to listen.
Of course it may all have been focus grouped. That what would really go down well in the Red Wall is inviting the new US President plus EU leaders, and then picking a fight with all of them in the name of sovereignty.