A thread about Brexit and Afghanistan. In many, perhaps most, ways they are separate issues, but there are some important interconnections/ overlaps. One is about the vanity of the idea of 'Global Britain' as a military power that grows from Brexit nationalism ... 1/7
... as evidenced by Johnson's 'Britain is back East of Suez' speech when Foreign Secretary (gov.uk/government/spe…) and subsequent posturing such as deploying the UK's Carrier Strike Group in the South China Sea. It's as if Suez had never happened. 2/7
Ironically, but for Eurosceptic fears of an EU super state and an EU army, the UK whilst in the EU might have forged & led the development of an EU military capacity, instead of insisting that only NATO was about security and the EU should be just a trade bloc. Too late now. 3/7
Military issues aside, UK diplomatic and soft power has been squandered by Brexit in general and by Johnson in particular. UK's reputation for pragmatic commonsense, trustworthiness (NIP) and respect for domestic (prorogation) and international law (IMB) has been shredded. 4/7
That matters in all kinds of ways, including undermining the weight of UK demands that the Taliban honour its commitments to protecting human rights. An unlikely prospect anyway, but UK authority to demand it now much reduced. 5/7 itv.com/news/2021-08-1…
Meanwhile, Brexity nativism over refugee policy and international development policy hampers & probably precludes the UK doing what little it can now do for the Afghan people, including those who worked for us. Disgusting in itself, and further corrosive of our reputation. 6/7
Finally, the Afghanistan pull-out - just at the logistical level - exposes again the utter mediocrity of a government whose ministers, from Johnson down, owe their position solely to genuine or professed fealty to 'getting Brexit done', with competence irrelevant. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From all I know and have heard about @GavinBarwell he is a decent and honourable person, so I'm casting no aspersions on his integrity at all, but I really struggle to understand this analysis. Short thread: 1/7
If TM's deal had passed with Labour support in the teeth of ferocious ERG & DUP opposition, what Govt could actually have enacted it? May would surely have been deposed within days by a VONC (Opposition parties + ERG, DUP) and a GNU under Corbyn was a non-starter. 2/7
So, presumably, a GE with Tories led by who? May on the manifesto of her deal that half her MPs had rejected? Johnson (if, somehow, there'd been time to get a new leader) on a renegotiate platform? Where does that go in terms of May's deal? 3/7
There are persistent misunderstandings about what 'Canada-style' means. For the UK, at first blush, the stress is on 'Canada', though in fact the UK ask goes well beyond CETA so that's disingenuous. 1/5
Whereas for EU the stress is on 'style' i.e. that this would be in the category of an FTA relationship, rather than SM membership (that's what the Barnier staircase meant). But Canada is geographically distant, does far less trade with the EU and is far less integrated. 2/5
In short, UK isn't really like Canada (history, geography, economy). And, anyway, there are all the non-trade things. So, actually, both UK & EU accept their deal can't just be CETA. 3/5
This was exactly my very tentative thought. Suppose it DOES have that effect, and suppose the SA regime was 'robust' enough to satisfy EU. If so, there's potentially a ladder to climb down, taken in conjunction with ... 1/4
. If all this was acceptable to EU (I know, big 'if') then potentially the NIP could be adapted *by agreement* & the SA obstacle to an FTA removed 2/4
BJ then presents to ERG & country that this is a great victory (removing the 'poison pill'), created by being 'tough', and deriving in the *first* instance from the unilateral decisions of the 'sovereign UK', to which the EU has 'bowed'. Then rush it all through. 3/4
I've just read @DenisMacShane's excellent Brexiternity and strongly recommend it (disclosure: publishers sent me a freebie, but I hope no one thinks I can be bought - for the price of a book, anyway): bloomsbury.com/uk/brexiternit…. There are now a few great books on Brexit ... 1/7
Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now by @IanDunt was one of the first (2016) and is still well worth reading (there's a revised 2019 edition): canburypress.com/products/brexi… 2/7
A highly revealing comment, not least for showing the complete refusal of Brexiters to take any responsibility whatsoever for what they have done. The current mess is, of course, everyone *else's* fault. But more specifically 1/5
Having told us for decades that the EU was a malign body, they now claim that their 'plan' was entirely dependent on EU goodwill; and having claimed that the UK 'held all the cards' they now talk of 'EU bullying' as if it were the stronger party. 2/5
It neglects the fact that, far from sabotage, May's government has sought to implement to the letter the hard Brexiters' agenda (no SM/CU) and that the main opposition to her deal comes from ERG Brexiters rather than remainers (and 'Jezza' is certainly not one of those). 3/5
The Michael Howard interview on @BBCr4today was littered with other problems, including: a) imagining 'no deal' as, in fact, an ad hoc deal that EU could agree to without any of the features that they need from *any* deal. 1/4
b) Imagining unilateral abandonment of *import* checks - which would anyway create massive risk of smuggling and contaminated/ unsafe products - to be a solution to queues caused by checks on *exports*. 2/4
c) Imagining that the Barnier 'offer' of a Canada-style deal would obviate need for the NI backstop to which Howard objects (indeed Howard didn't mention NI at all). 3/4