A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
Conquest doesn't always have to involve violence. The effect was to subjugate the Scots to English power up to this present day. That is conquest.
So, jumping the gun slightly, if Johnson is suspended and then recalled and then stands for re-election... how does the by-election pan out?
Best case scenario for Sunak is that Johnson becomes a scapegoat for everyone's frustrations over the pandemic, the sense of unfairness, the current economic situation, etc, and the wipeout he suffers as a result draws a lot of the sting from that anger.
Worst case, Johnson wins, reputation as an election-winner enhanced, can claim vindication over the reasons for his ejection from Number Ten and surfs a tide straight back into power.
Labour will hope to not only defeat Johnson, but tie Sunak to him, so that the electorate repeat the cleansing ritual at the general election.
If there is a by-election, Johnson should stand.
Because he will lose, and that will purge the fever from the Tories.
Ashcroft poll says he'd win, (which I find amazing)
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
You in favour of condemning people to a lifetime of Russian oppression then?
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
So, jumping the gun slightly, if Johnson is suspended and then recalled and then stands for re-election... how does the by-election pan out?
Best case scenario for Sunak is that Johnson becomes a scapegoat for everyone's frustrations over the pandemic, the sense of unfairness, the current economic situation, etc, and the wipeout he suffers as a result draws a lot of the sting from that anger.
Worst case, Johnson wins, reputation as an election-winner enhanced, can claim vindication over the reasons for his ejection from Number Ten and surfs a tide straight back into power.
Labour will hope to not only defeat Johnson, but tie Sunak to him, so that the electorate repeat the cleansing ritual at the general election.
If there is a by-election, Johnson should stand.
Because he will lose, and that will purge the fever from the Tories.
Ashcroft poll says he'd win, (which I find amazing)
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
Who is talking about inaction? It's the distasteful luxuriating in battle strategy by the beardy-weirdly gamers on here that grates.
We pontificate on a lot of things on here. Why shouldn't the major news story of the past year be one of them?
I'd have more sympathy with the banks if they weren't whacking up rates on borrowing like there was no tomorrow. But they are, while clearly using oligopoly power to keep the rates on savings low.
So, jumping the gun slightly, if Johnson is suspended and then recalled and then stands for re-election... how does the by-election pan out?
Best case scenario for Sunak is that Johnson becomes a scapegoat for everyone's frustrations over the pandemic, the sense of unfairness, the current economic situation, etc, and the wipeout he suffers as a result draws a lot of the sting from that anger.
Worst case, Johnson wins, reputation as an election-winner enhanced, can claim vindication over the reasons for his ejection from Number Ten and surfs a tide straight back into power.
Labour will hope to not only defeat Johnson, but tie Sunak to him, so that the electorate repeat the cleansing ritual at the general election.
If there is a by-election, Johnson should stand.
Because he will lose, and that will purge the fever from the Tories.
Ashcroft poll says he'd win, (which I find amazing)
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
That's a pretty strange interpretation of history. We are where we were, prior to 1973, and an important part of a major military alliance. The British "Empire" consisted of a strip of Eastern American seaboard, Hudsons Bay, and a few trading posts and islands in 1707. By 1800, we'd added Bengal and the Carnatic, but had lost the American seaboard.
Ahem
“Splendid Isolation?”
The East India Company certainly recruited a substantial army in India, after 1760, but it was deployed exclusively in India. The UK's military power in the Napoleonic Wars depended almost entirely on men who were recruited from the UK, or foreigners who enlisted in British service, like the Kings German Legion, or Chasseurs Britannique. The Empire can hardly be said to have existed in 1800, and was certainly not a significant contributor to the UK's military power until much later in the 19th century.
Indeed. Officially India wasn't even part of the British Empire until after the Indian mutiny. It became a colony following the Government of India Act of 1858. Though it was used as training ground for British officers who served under the East India Company.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
Who is talking about inaction? It's the distasteful luxuriating in battle strategy by the beardy-weirdly gamers on here that grates.
Oh do fuck off with this conversation policing.
We're discussing an active event in world history. That involves a lot of speculation at times, as well as sharing of information we've seen elsewhere and trying to understand the implications.
If you're not interested then talk about something else, but your petty insults are wearisome and absurdly self-important and pompous.
Honestly, you're criticising the off-topic subject of conversation on an obscure internet chat platform. Get a life.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
You're just in favour of these young men throwing themselves on the mercy of Vladimir Putin.
Not at all. What an absolutely moronic comment.
Well, you get annoyed whenever we advocate Western support for Ukraine.
What you are doing is concern-trolling. You affect concern for young men being killed, while shifting the blame away from the invader to those who offer support to Ukraine.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
Who is talking about inaction? It's the distasteful luxuriating in battle strategy by the beardy-weirdly gamers on here that grates.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
That's a pretty strange interpretation of history. We are where we were, prior to 1973, and an important part of a major military alliance. The British "Empire" consisted of a strip of Eastern American seaboard, Hudsons Bay, and a few trading posts and islands in 1707. By 1800, we'd added Bengal and the Carnatic, but had lost the American seaboard.
Ahem
“Splendid Isolation?”
The East India Company certainly recruited a substantial army in India, after 1760, but it was deployed exclusively in India. The UK's military power in the Napoleonic Wars depended almost entirely on men who were recruited from the UK, or foreigners who enlisted in British service, like the Kings German Legion, or Chasseurs Britannique. The Empire can hardly be said to have existed in 1800, and was certainly not a significant contributor to the UK's military power until much later in the 19th century.
Indeed. Officially India wasn't even part of the British Empire until after the Indian mutiny. It became a colony following the Government of India Act of 1858. Though it was used as training ground for British officers who served under the East India Company.
The EIC was very much detached though wasn't it? There were tensions.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
Conquest doesn't always have to involve violence. The effect was to subjugate the Scots to English power up to this present day. That is conquest.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
January 2025 is looking a long way away for Putin now.
There's a good chance of him being driven out of Ukraine before then iyo?
I think that many figures in the Russian hierarchy are starting to think about how best to protect their position - and weaken the position of their rivals - in a post-Putin Russia. It's possible that Putin will find his time is up before Russia is completely defeated in Ukraine.
I certainly get the sense that victory in the war with Ukraine is not really everyone's greatest concern in the Russian leadership, compared with surviving the fallout from its failure.
I'm not that optimistic myself but I hope you are right. Where I am more optimistic (than most) is on Donald Trump becoming president again. Not happening imo. So if Putin is banking on that he's in trouble.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
That's a pretty strange interpretation of history. We are where we were, prior to 1973, and an important part of a major military alliance. The British "Empire" consisted of a strip of Eastern American seaboard, Hudsons Bay, and a few trading posts and islands in 1707. By 1800, we'd added Bengal and the Carnatic, but had lost the American seaboard.
Ahem
“Splendid Isolation?”
The East India Company certainly recruited a substantial army in India, after 1760, but it was deployed exclusively in India. The UK's military power in the Napoleonic Wars depended almost entirely on men who were recruited from the UK, or foreigners who enlisted in British service, like the Kings German Legion, or Chasseurs Britannique. The Empire can hardly be said to have existed in 1800, and was certainly not a significant contributor to the UK's military power until much later in the 19th century.
Indeed. Officially India wasn't even part of the British Empire until after the Indian mutiny. It became a colony following the Government of India Act of 1858. Though it was used as training ground for British officers who served under the East India Company.
The EIC was very much detached though wasn't it? There were tensions.
Indeed. Tensions would put it mildly. Though they decried the violence, the British Government saw the Indian Mutiny as a golden opportunity to get rid of the EIC and grabbed it with both hands.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
It was. And also the American contribution wasn't as much appreciated by the Ukrainians, even though on any objective assessment the Americans and Joe Biden in particular, were vastly more important to Ukraine's future than Johnson.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
They were seduced by the persona like so many have been over the years. His career was built on it.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
Conquest doesn't always have to involve violence. The effect was to subjugate the Scots to English power up to this present day. That is conquest.
So the conquest of space was a violent act? The conquest of Everest?
Oh and go and look up the Conquest of Mecca - which is actually known in Arabic as the non violent or peaceful conquest.
You were talking about Scotland as a political entity. Your examples of Everest and space are a different context and meaning and utterly irrelevant to that, and your claim that 'conquest doesn't have to involve violence' is at odds with every dictionary definition of the word. If you feel that definition needs to be changed, direct your ire at the lexicographal profession.
Also, I might add you are talking bollocks about the conquest of Mecca. The Muslim army met no resistance because their opponents saw it was hopeless and surrendered. And even then, quite a lot were executed, rather more than the four claimed by Islamic sources.
There is no way that a reasonable person could see the King of Scotland becoming simultaneously the King of England as an English conquest of Scotland. None. There were other occasions later that could quite reasonably be described as a conquest, but not 1603.
Stop behaving like Hyufd. You're better than this.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
No one gets ignored more than a perceived 'extremist' under PR. When all the 'centre' parties come together to exclude them from power.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
No one gets ignored more than a perceived 'extremist' under PR. When all the 'centre' parties come together to exclude them from power.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
No one gets ignored more than a perceived 'extremist' under PR. When all the 'centre' parties come together to exclude them from power.
Meloni is PM of Italy under PR and hardly a centrist.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
Conquest doesn't always have to involve violence. The effect was to subjugate the Scots to English power up to this present day. That is conquest.
So the conquest of space was a violent act? The conquest of Everest?
Oh and go and look up the Conquest of Mecca - which is actually known in Arabic as the non violent or peaceful conquest.
You were talking about Scotland as a political entity. Your examples of Everest and space are a different context and meaning and utterly irrelevant to that, and your claim that 'conquest doesn't have to involve violence' is at odds with every dictionary definition of the word. If you feel that definition needs to be changed, direct your ire at the lexicographal profession.
Also, I might add you are talking bollocks about the conquest of Mecca. The Muslim army met no resistance because their opponents saw it was hopeless and surrendered. And even then, quite a lot were executed, rather more than the four claimed by Islamic sources.
There is no way that a reasonable person could see the King of Scotland becoming simultaneously the King of England as an English conquest of Scotland. None. There were other occasions later that could quite reasonably be described as a conquest, but not 1603.
Stop behaving like Hyufd. You're better than this.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
The UK defaulted on its debts in 1932; Germany tried to take over within a decade
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
No one gets ignored more than a perceived 'extremist' under PR. When all the 'centre' parties come together to exclude them from power.
But if there is only one "perceived extremist", is it not right that he should be ignored in favour of the 45.000,000 non extremists? Would he be ignored any more than he would be under the present system?
In passing, I am almost always totally ignored under the present system. Even worse, "my MP", my representative in Parliament, speaks and votes against my view all the time.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
Conquest doesn't always have to involve violence. The effect was to subjugate the Scots to English power up to this present day. That is conquest.
So the conquest of space was a violent act? The conquest of Everest?
Oh and go and look up the Conquest of Mecca - which is actually known in Arabic as the non violent or peaceful conquest.
You were talking about Scotland as a political entity. Your examples of Everest and space are a different context and meaning and utterly irrelevant to that, and your claim that 'conquest doesn't have to involve violence' is at odds with every dictionary definition of the word. If you feel that definition needs to be changed, direct your ire at the lexicographal profession.
Also, I might add you are talking bollocks about the conquest of Mecca. The Muslim army met no resistance because their opponents saw it was hopeless and surrendered. And even then, quite a lot were executed, rather more than the four claimed by Islamic sources.
There is no way that a reasonable person could see the King of Scotland becoming simultaneously the King of England as an English conquest of Scotland. None. There were other occasions later that could quite reasonably be described as a conquest, but not 1603.
Stop behaving like Hyufd. You're better than this.
No because as I have made clear from the start what matters is effect. The effect of the Union of the crowns was to subjugate Scotland. That was conquest.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
"Doing nothing is not an option" I think was Tony Blair's words at the time. Not only.was doing nothing an option, but it was clearly the better option, as you point out.
Was it? Iraq is now Saddam free, with an elected government and if Saddam was still in power he would definitely now be supporting Putin.
In fact Iraq has turned out better than Afghanistan where the Taliban are back in power with Bin Laden not even killed there anyway but in Pakistan
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
No one gets ignored more than a perceived 'extremist' under PR. When all the 'centre' parties come together to exclude them from power.
But if there is only one "perceived extremist", is it not right that he should be ignored in favour of the 45.000,000 non extremists? Would he be ignored any more than he would be under the present system?
In passing, I am almost always totally ignored under the present system. Even worse, "my MP", my representative in Parliament, speaks and votes against my view all the time.
If it were only 1 extremist out of 45 million you would have a point. But the recent history of European politics is littered with examples of 'perceived extremists' getting significant support and then being shut out by perceived centrist parties.
So, jumping the gun slightly, if Johnson is suspended and then recalled and then stands for re-election... how does the by-election pan out?
Best case scenario for Sunak is that Johnson becomes a scapegoat for everyone's frustrations over the pandemic, the sense of unfairness, the current economic situation, etc, and the wipeout he suffers as a result draws a lot of the sting from that anger.
Worst case, Johnson wins, reputation as an election-winner enhanced, can claim vindication over the reasons for his ejection from Number Ten and surfs a tide straight back into power.
Labour will hope to not only defeat Johnson, but tie Sunak to him, so that the electorate repeat the cleansing ritual at the general election.
If there is a by-election, Johnson should stand.
Because he will lose, and that will purge the fever from the Tories.
Ashcroft poll says he'd win, (which I find amazing)
I think it makes an amount of sense. His own core supporters, obviously, plus Tories who want to stick it to Rishi and blame him even though it'd be nothing to do with him, plus Tories angry at what after this much time they will think is disproportionate reaction,or those generally angry at the party but not wanting it humiliated, and knowing they can vote against him again in a year anyway.
It's not as slam dunk a win as Paterson would have had if he were not an enormous bellend who quite outright, but I think he'd be confident.
My initial prediction was that he'd end up with a suspension below petition threshold, but after Ferrier I'm less confident.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, and was also primarily there to discuss Ukraine, with nonsense designed for the UK tabloids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation any further, in the same way.
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
Conquest doesn't always have to involve violence. The effect was to subjugate the Scots to English power up to this present day. That is conquest.
So the conquest of space was a violent act? The conquest of Everest?
Oh and go and look up the Conquest of Mecca - which is actually known in Arabic as the non violent or peaceful conquest.
You were talking about Scotland as a political entity. Your examples of Everest and space are a different context and meaning and utterly irrelevant to that, and your claim that 'conquest doesn't have to involve violence' is at odds with every dictionary definition of the word. If you feel that definition needs to be changed, direct your ire at the lexicographal profession.
Also, I might add you are talking bollocks about the conquest of Mecca. The Muslim army met no resistance because their opponents saw it was hopeless and surrendered. And even then, quite a lot were executed, rather more than the four claimed by Islamic sources.
There is no way that a reasonable person could see the King of Scotland becoming simultaneously the King of England as an English conquest of Scotland. None. There were other occasions later that could quite reasonably be described as a conquest, but not 1603.
Stop behaving like Hyufd. You're better than this.
No because as I have made clear from the start what matters is effect. The effect of the Union of the crowns was to subjugate Scotland. That was conquest.
I think that is far too broad a definition, personally. It makes the word meaningless as a descriptor, since people would have no real clue what was meant by conquest - invasion, violent domination, 'mere' political subjugation etc - and ignores the direction travelled by the Head of State as if an irrelevance.
I don't see how it helps clarify or understand events to make that word so broad like that.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Judging from this, the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
I've always viewed the length of the ban proposed as important. It's easy to argue that 8 days should be expanded to 10 days or 10 days reduced to 5 days but if the initial proposed ban is 40 days (say) Labour doesn't need to do anything while the Tories need to reduce it by 80% or more to get it below the 10 day threshold.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
This is just dogma, and it's based on the implicitly anti-American perspective that defines 'genuine' influence as doing something in opposition to the US.
I think this is a reasonable point. We are and do coordinate with the US a great deal, and I do think we have played a particular role as part of that coordination, but that is taken too far to imply essentally that without clear differentiation then individual national influence cannot exist. But if that is so then really only 2-3 nations have any influence at all. Many do, if lesser in nature.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
To put it another way, there is no level of collegiality short of crawling on our hands and knees begging for humanitarian aid and immediate admittance to the Eurozone that would elicit a positive comment from Fabian Zuleeg.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
Speak for yourself. But I can't deny that a better offering from Westminster would help.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
1745-6 wasn't a Scottish invasion of England but a UK-wide dynastic war - notably in Scotland.
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
I've always viewed the length of the ban proposed as important. It's easy to argue that 8 days should be expanded to 10 days or 10 days reduced to 5 days but if the initial proposed ban is 40 days (say) Labour doesn't need to do anything while the Tories need to reduce it by 80% or more to get it below the 10 day threshold.
I think the key is agreement on the committee - if the Tories on it, no fans of Johnson necessarily, are known to have felt a very long one was too harsh (on the basis perhaps that it is impossible to prove he lied intentionally, even if he can be proven to have misled), then Rishi will have such a rebellion if he doesn't try to save Boris, even though it will be a boon to the opposition. If the committee as a whole backs a sub-10 day ban then Labour can try, and some will paint the Tories as bad for upholding the lower one, but they can point to the process with some level of integrity.
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
You are much geekier than me. I have to confess I thought it was simply a question of the HoC voting to apply or not the committee's recommendation, I hadn't appreciated that can vary the sanction.
However, in practice if the committee says 10 days or less, Labour won't win a vote to increase it to >10.
If the committee says 11 days or more, Johnson supporters won't win a vote to reduce it... unless Sunak sponsors that and makes reducing the sentence a whipped vote. And why on earth would he do that?
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
Speak for yourself. But I can't deny that a better offering from Westminster would help.
Well, the fact that the polling dips sometimes over to the Yes side (a recent run of Yes leads came in the winter) shows that Scotland on the whole is swithering. Your certainty on the issue doesn't mean others feel as sure. It's fair to say that No currently has a narrowish lead. I'd hate to put any money on where that will be in six months' time.
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
1745-6 wasn't a Scottish invasion of England but a UK-wide dynastic war - notably in Scotland.
Also a religious war with the Young Pretender picking up some support from Catholics south of the border, if rather less than he had hoped. More Scots than English on the government side at Culloden.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
This is just dogma, and it's based on the implicitly anti-American perspective that defines 'genuine' influence as doing something in opposition to the US.
I think this is a reasonable point. We are and do coordinate with the US a great deal, and I do think we have played a particular role as part of that coordination, but that is taken too far to imply essentally that without clear differentiation then individual national influence cannot exist. But if that is so then really only 2-3 nations have any influence at all. Many do, if lesser in nature.
Well, look at France. . It closely co-ordinates with the US, but has also done all sorts of things completely separately from the US, unlike modern Britain. Sarkozy and Macron have created the "EU Med" club, for instance, essentially a forum for France to project its power across the Mediterranean. Britain could choose to take similar steps independently from the US, while still closely co-ordinating with the US, but chooses not to do that.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
They were seduced by the persona like so many have been over the years. His career was built on it.
Sorry, but that’s bollocks. Johnson allowed the thousands of NLAW anti-tank missiles to be transferred to Ukraine before the war started. You can both hate Boris Johnson, and be in favour of defending Ukraine.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
Speak for yourself. But I can't deny that a better offering from Westminster would help.
What is beyond dispute at this moment is that it is not the settled will of a clear majority (or a majority at all) of Scots that they want to leave the United Kingdom. There is also no real doubt that if that settled will existed they would have independence by now.
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
They were seduced by the persona like so many have been over the years. His career was built on it.
Sorry, but that’s bollocks. Johnson allowed the thousands of NLAW anti-tank missiles to be transferred to Ukraine before the war started. You can both hate Boris Johnson, and be in favour of defending Ukraine.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
This is just dogma, and it's based on the implicitly anti-American perspective that defines 'genuine' influence as doing something in opposition to the US.
I think this is a reasonable point. We are and do coordinate with the US a great deal, and I do think we have played a particular role as part of that coordination, but that is taken too far to imply essentally that without clear differentiation then individual national influence cannot exist. But if that is so then really only 2-3 nations have any influence at all. Many do, if lesser in nature.
Well, look at France. . It closely co-ordinates with the US, but has also done all sorts of things completely separately from the US, unlike modern Britain. Sarkozy and Macron have created the "EU Med" club, for instance, essentially as forum for France to project its power across the Mediterranean. Britain could choose to take similar steps independently from the US, while still closely co-ordinating with the US, but chooses not to do so.
How is this policy going for France? It's far from obvious that it is their foreign policy rather than ours that has been vindicated by the developments of the last few years.
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
I am open to correction but I think the DTel has made a mistake.
The article says that the Speaker has to decide whether or not to order a referendum.
SFAICS he does not have this discretion (Section 5 of the Recall Act) but must take particular action which brings about the process.
Someone will tell me if I am wrong!
That part does look wrong to me as well. It would make an absurdity of the purpose of recall process. As far as I know the whole point is certain things trigger a recall, and I presume the Speaker is just involved administratively, as the purpose the voters then decide if they want a recall, not whether the speaker wants one.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
I feel like this story via the Telegraph which has been picked up on really brings home to me how I'm a political geek, since rather than it being 'missed by everyone' I feel like the motion being amendable and subject to vote has been obvious to us for the better part of a year, a big part of why Rishi has a headache about what to do - make it free vote but back committee himself, or lead a change in defence knowing there will be lots who will do so (many did over Ferrier).
You are much geekier than me. I have to confess I thought it was simply a question of the HoC voting to apply or not the committee's recommendation, I hadn't appreciated that can vary the sanction.
However, in practice if the committee says 10 days or less, Labour won't win a vote to increase it to >10.
If the committee says 11 days or more, Johnson supporters won't win a vote to reduce it... unless Sunak sponsors that and makes reducing the sentence a whipped vote. And why on earth would he do that?
It was really only the Paterson furore that clued me in.
I think you are right about reducing the sentence being very difficult - Sunak can whip but I think there'd be enough rebels to see it over the line with every opposition MP voting in favour of the harsher sentence. There's plenty of strong anti Boris votes as well as fans (and the larger group in the middle who want a quiet life and will do as ordered).
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
Speak for yourself. But I can't deny that a better offering from Westminster would help.
What is beyond dispute at this moment is that it is not the settled will of a clear majority (or a majority at all) of Scots that they want to leave the United Kingdom. There is also no real doubt that if that settled will existed they would have independence by now.
Yes. FWIW these things seem to peak a bit when the Tories are in power, especially when Scotland has largely rejected them. We are probably heading into 10 years+ of Labour government with a fair number of Scottish MPs. Hopefully that, along with the travails of the SNP, should calm things down for a bit.
WHOA! The Supreme Court's final decision of the day is a 5–4 ruling that AFFIRMS the Voting Rights Act's protection against racial vote dilution! Roberts and Kavanaugh join the liberals. This is a HUGE surprise and a major voting rights victory.
It is a surprise. Note the other four still want to kill the Act completely.
One impact of this decision: It's a boon to Democrats' chances of retaking the House in 2024. The Supreme Court had blocked multiple lower court rulings striking down congressional maps that diluted Black voting power. At least some of those rulings should now be implemented. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1666812234310496256
Good news for American democracy but a reminder of how poisonous racial politics remain current in America. I suppose the closest analogy here is the Good Friday Agreement with its safeguards for both communities.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
This is just dogma, and it's based on the implicitly anti-American perspective that defines 'genuine' influence as doing something in opposition to the US.
I think this is a reasonable point. We are and do coordinate with the US a great deal, and I do think we have played a particular role as part of that coordination, but that is taken too far to imply essentally that without clear differentiation then individual national influence cannot exist. But if that is so then really only 2-3 nations have any influence at all. Many do, if lesser in nature.
Well, look at France. . It closely co-ordinates with the US, but has also done all sorts of things completely separately from the US, unlike modern Britain. Sarkozy and Macron have created the "EU Med" club, for instance, essentially a forum for France to project its power across the Mediterranean. Britain could choose to take similar steps independently from the US, while still closely co-ordinating with the US, but chooses not to do that.
Chooses is the point. It doesn't mean there is no genuine influence because there's less differentiation.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
I see the US Supreme Court has slightly surprised some people on a ruling re the Voting Right's Act. In their marginal defencee, it isn't true that every single case they vote along their expected partisan lines and their politics clearly matters more than any legal reasoning - just most of the time. Sometimes the sides barely seem to conceal that they want to gut/protect purely on the grounds they politically like it (which given they are all intelligent jurists is just lazy).
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
"Doing nothing is not an option" I think was Tony Blair's words at the time. Not only.was doing nothing an option, but it was clearly the better option, as you point out.
A few phrases come back to memory. "Doing nothing had costs too" - I recall that one. Also the "calculus of risk changed after 9/11". These were by way of debating and justifying after the event. Then beforehand there was the rather stirring "the Kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux. Soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us re-order this world around us." A hugely gifted communicator but it all went to his head a bit, is my sense of things with Tony and foreign policy.
The shit about kaleidoscopes ought to have been proof once and for all that analogies are worse than misleading when talking about policies.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
1745-6 wasn't a Scottish invasion of England but a UK-wide dynastic war - notably in Scotland.
Yes, and so it also wasn't a failed war of independence either, because Scotland wasn't an oppressed colony of England.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
I merely said that prestige comes from success rather than vice versa.
As for not following our lead, that's precisely what the EU did on supplying arms to Ukraine. I gave you the quote from the German finance minister when the invasion started...
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Along with the warnings from the US, some time before the event, that they had firm intelligence that Russia would invade. Most were sceptical - including Ukraine - and some flat out refused to believe it, but the alert undoubtedly helped Ukraine prepare.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
It was. And also the American contribution wasn't as much appreciated by the Ukrainians, even though on any objective assessment the Americans and Joe Biden in particular, were vastly more important to Ukraine's future than Johnson.
Boris is good at securing attention. That worked on this issue as well as others. That being so doesn't undermine that his response was excellent on this issue, even as the americans provide the most overall and presumably Poland the most local backing.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
They were seduced by the persona like so many have been over the years. His career was built on it.
Sorry, but that’s bollocks. Johnson allowed the thousands of NLAW anti-tank missiles to be transferred to Ukraine before the war started. You can both hate Boris Johnson, and be in favour of defending Ukraine.
The US have done far more yet streets there are not named after Joe Biden. It's persona, trust me. That's what Boris Johnson is. He's not a person. He's a persona.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Along with the warnings from the US, some time before the event, that they had firm intelligence that Russia would invade. Most were sceptical - including Ukraine - and some flat out refused to believe it, but the alert undoubtedly helped Ukraine prepare.
There's been a lot of talk about the Russian seizure and then Ukrainian fightback at an airport near the city, which would apparently have been critical. By the time the Russians did reseize it it was not able to be used as intended.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
January 2025 is looking a long way away for Putin now.
There's a good chance of him being driven out of Ukraine before then iyo?
I think that many figures in the Russian hierarchy are starting to think about how best to protect their position - and weaken the position of their rivals - in a post-Putin Russia. It's possible that Putin will find his time is up before Russia is completely defeated in Ukraine.
I certainly get the sense that victory in the war with Ukraine is not really everyone's greatest concern in the Russian leadership, compared with surviving the fallout from its failure.
I'm not that optimistic myself but I hope you are right. Where I am more optimistic (than most) is on Donald Trump becoming president again. Not happening imo. So if Putin is banking on that he's in trouble.
Well, I'm not that optimistic on Trump, but I hope you are right.
Far too many people prepared to ignore the tallied votes to make me comfortable, and then there was 2016 too, and the polls are frankly not great for Biden.
But between us we have an optimistic take on two of the most important issues of the next year or two, so there's that.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
I merely said that prestige comes from success rather than vice versa.
As for not following our lead, that's precisely what the EU did on supplying arms to Ukraine. I gave you the quote from the German finance minister when the invasion started...
But then we return, in this slightly circular argument..to the fact that that lead was completely co-ordinated with the US from the start.
So I wouldn't describe that as the kind of more genuinely independent influence the French have shown by helping to forge naval and energy agreements across the Mediterranean, and possibly having even helped to deter Erdogan in so doing, for instance. Britain could do something similar in the North, if it wanted.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
I'd say the voters for anyone but either of the two main parties are every bit as much ignored.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
The problem with inaction is that it led us here. We did not do enough over Georgia in 2008. We did not do enough over Litvinenko. We did not do enough over MH17. We did not do enough about Crimea or the Donbass. We did not do enough after Salisbury.
Each time, Putin tested us, saw our reaction, and measured how far he could push us next time. It is alleged that the Russian government calculated what sanctions would be placed on them after a Ukraine invasion, and made measures to cope with those sanctions.
Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated, and the sanctions have been far deeper than they expected. Because, for once in that hideous list above, our response was greater than they planned for.
The miscalculation was not on the sanctions, but their overconfidence about being able to seize Kyiv quickly. Everything else flows from their initial military failure.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner "with a polite smile" told Ambassador Melnyk that Ukraine had only a few hours left, so it was "senseless" to supply weapons to Kyiv & disconnect Russia from SWIFT, Melnyk told FAZ
I think Russia's attack last year had a realistic chance of success. That it didn't succeed, at least initially, was probably down to Zelenskyy staying put in Kiyv and rallying the Ukrainian response, and the coordinated support from western countries, for which Joe Biden can take a lot of the credit.
Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson.
I'd more say 'Joe Biden plus various other less influential but not totally unimportant figures including (if we must) Boris Johnson'.
No. Boris Johnson.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
They were seduced by the persona like so many have been over the years. His career was built on it.
Sorry, but that’s bollocks. Johnson allowed the thousands of NLAW anti-tank missiles to be transferred to Ukraine before the war started. You can both hate Boris Johnson, and be in favour of defending Ukraine.
The US have done far more yet streets there are not named after Joe Biden. It's persona, trust me. That's what Boris Johnson is. He's not a person. He's a persona.
He is. And being a persona can be very useful indeed, when influencing things. I truly dislike the man, but he was the right kind of man for the role needed there.
Of course, if Blair hadn’t won such a big majority in 97, then he would have instituted PR along the lines advocated by Lord Jenkins. It was Prescott who stopped him.
From Labour backbench MPs perspective, Prescott was right.
Labour would only have won 283 MPs with PR in 1997, compared to the 418 Labour MPs elected under FPTP in 1997
Labour will never introduce PR, unless it’s the unavoidable price of a coalition with the Liberals.
And even then LAB would try as hard as possible to water it down to just apply to local elections, and any elected replacement for House of Lords, not for the Commons.
Do people think pr for national elections could be introduced without a referendum? Technically yes it could however I think politically the answer is no.
If there is a referendum do you think PR would win? I personally think the answer is no.
Politically I think the critical determinant is whether it's a manifesto commitment. If it's in the manifesto, and they are elected on that manifesto, then there's no issue. This is one reason why Labour opponents to PR will fight to keep a commitment to PR out of the manifesto.
If it's not in the manifesto then I suspect that Labour MPs and Lords opposed to PR will be able to force a referendum, and the cross-party opposition will make it hard for a referendum to be won.
Spot on. And given that Starmer himself opposes PR there is statistically zero chance of it appearing in the manifesto.
Why would anyone expect Labour (or any other party) to oppose the system that benefits them.
If STV is good enough for the most fractious part of the UK (as in NI), why not the rest of the country?
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and PR would make a repeat more likely. However, if you are looking for some form of more proportional system that Labour might be prepared to adopt, and which would promote stable government, I suggest that something similar to the majority bonus system currently in use in Greece and formerly in Italy is your best bet. (The Greece version awards the seat bonus to the largest party, the Italian version awarded the bonus to the largest pre-formed coalition.) It puts a high premium on parties forming a coalition before an election, so that would benefit Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens and the mutual interest would make a coalition likely in order to deliver bonus seats and a stable government. It's much more democratic because the choice of coalition would be made transparent before people vote, just about every other PR system leaves it coalitions to form in smoke filled rooms with no regard to the electorate may have wanted.
What I cannot see Starmer doing is conceding a form of PR that would in future allow the Lib Dems to play kingmaker once people have voted. The experience of Clegg in 2010 is still a bitter one for many in Labour.
The experience of unstable government in the 2018-19 period is something to be avoided, and occurred under FPTP. It's hardly a good argument against PR to say we got these problems without PR!
If you prize "stability" in a system, defined here as a clear winner (be it a single party or a pre-formed coalition), then the approach used in many countries is to directly elect the executive. I think that's neater than a majority bonus system in some ways, but the problem with directly electing the executive is that usually means electing a president and there are downsides to presidential systems.
I appreciate that the instability of our government in 2018-19 took place under FPTP, but at least it was the exception to the rule. There have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system and they were short lived and resolved by a subsequent election. Under some forms of PR that situation it would either become the rule rather than the exception or be resolved by negotiation often lasting months between politicians from which the public is wholly excluded. How many of the Irish electorate when casting their votes thought that they were voting for a FF/FG coalition for example, and what worth are promises made during an election when they can be readily discarded as soon as post election negotiations kick off?
The majority bonus system seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, incorporating a large dose of PR but with elections being potentially conducted between two coalitions, designed to deliver stable government with the largest coalition being chosen by the electorate.
Lots of countries with PR have no difficulty regularly delivering single party majority government (e.g., Japan, South Africa, Malta). Lots of countries with FPTP repeatedly fail to produce single party majorities in the legislature (India, France). The relationship is more complicated than FPTP good/PR bad. The effective number of active political parties is what really matters: when that's between 1 and 2, systems produce reliable single party government. When that gets much bigger than 2, then systems fail to produce reliable single party government. PR is associated with somewhat higher effective numbers of parties, but many other factors matter too.
The UK, under FPTP, has been slowly moving away from a 2 party system, with the slow resurgence of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems, the faster growth of the SNP, and Northern Ireland diverging and having its own parties. That means the UK is seeing more hung parliaments. When you say there "have been very few instances in my lifetime where a UK government could not properly function under the present system", I'd note that the 2010 and 2017 elections both produced hung Parliaments, so that's half of the last four. A hung parliament is a fairly likely outcome at the next election.
Unless we see the UK's third, fourth and fifth parties withering away, we're going to continue to have hung results being common under FPTP.
I think you need to step back and rationally consider what you want from an electoral system. If you want a clear single party winner, how do you achieve that? Because FPTP is going to continue faring poorly!
One way to do that is your proposal, PR with a winning party boost. I think that might work. It's downsides are: (a) it can still fail to produce a winner, (b) it can seem arbitrary if the first and second placed party are very close and neither is that close to 50%, and (c) it can create tactical voting incentives that are unhelpful. But no voting system is perfect, as Arrow taught us.
Directly electing the executive (which usually means a President) is another approach. It guarantees you have a clear winner. You can have some ordinality in the voting (multiple rounds, AV, SV) to avoid some of the downsides of FPTP. However, presidential systems have their own problems, like worries the whole election becomes too much driven by personalities, and how does the president then work with a legislature afterwards. You could have a legislative election with a parallel presidential election, but the president gets to appoint X MPs to the legislature, a boost for the winning party.
So I agree with you more than I disagree with you! Let's pick a voting system that delivers what we want.
Let me think, does PR give us more of what we, the electorate, want than FPTP?
No. It gives the politicians and parties more of what they want. And an excuse for ignoring us.
Nobody gets ignored more than a voter in a safe seat under FPTP.
I'd say the voters for anyone but either of the two main parties are every bit as much ignored.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
I merely said that prestige comes from success rather than vice versa.
As for not following our lead, that's precisely what the EU did on supplying arms to Ukraine. I gave you the quote from the German finance minister when the invasion started...
But then we return, in this slightly circular argument..that lead was completely co-ordinated with the US from the start.
So I wouldn't describe that as the kind of more genuinely independent influence the French have shown by helping to forge naval and energy agreements across the Mediterranean, and possibly having even helped to deter Erdogan in doing that. Britain could do something similar in the North, if it wanted.
Yes, the French can genuinely independently allow the Wagner group to spread its control over large parts of Africa, and genuinely independently leave Lebanon in the lurch, and genuinely independently offend most of Eastern Europe with overtures to Putin…
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
This is just dogma, and it's based on the implicitly anti-American perspective that defines 'genuine' influence as doing something in opposition to the US.
I think this is a reasonable point. We are and do coordinate with the US a great deal, and I do think we have played a particular role as part of that coordination, but that is taken too far to imply essentally that without clear differentiation then individual national influence cannot exist. But if that is so then really only 2-3 nations have any influence at all. Many do, if lesser in nature.
Well, look at France. . It closely co-ordinates with the US, but has also done all sorts of things completely separately from the US, unlike modern Britain. Sarkozy and Macron have created the "EU Med" club, for instance, essentially a forum for France to project its power across the Mediterranean. Britain could choose to take similar steps independently from the US, while still closely co-ordinating with the US, but chooses not to do that.
Chooses is the point. It doesn't mean there is no genuine influence because there's less differentiation.
I wouldn't agree there.
The capacity to diverge, sometimes, also illustrates greater independence overall.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
I merely said that prestige comes from success rather than vice versa.
As for not following our lead, that's precisely what the EU did on supplying arms to Ukraine. I gave you the quote from the German finance minister when the invasion started...
But then we return, in this slightly circular argument..that lead was completely co-ordinated with the US from the start.
So I wouldn't describe that as the kind of more genuinely independent influence the French have shown by helping to forge naval and energy agreements across the Mediterranean, and possibly having even helped to deter Erdogan in doing that. Britain could do something similar in the North, if it wanted.
Yes, the French can genuinely independently allow the Wagner group to spread its control over large parts of Africa, and genuinely independently leave Lebanon in the lurch, and genuinely independently offend most of Eastern Europe with overtures to Putin…
And with that diversion, I bid you all bon soir, for now !;.)
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
1745-6 wasn't a Scottish invasion of England but a UK-wide dynastic war - notably in Scotland.
Yes, and so it also wasn't a failed war of independence either, because Scotland wasn't an oppressed colony of England.
Given UKG policy in 1706 onwards, and the almost immediate breaches of the treaty of union over taxation for instance, that's debatable. What's clear is that it could easily have become a war of independence if the Stuarts hadn't been so obsessed with killing off the Hanoverians instead of settling for what they did conquer and stopping at the border. Which woul dhave led to further war anyway.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
I merely said that prestige comes from success rather than vice versa.
As for not following our lead, that's precisely what the EU did on supplying arms to Ukraine. I gave you the quote from the German finance minister when the invasion started...
But then we return, in this slightly circular argument..that lead was completely co-ordinated with the US from the start.
So I wouldn't describe that as the kind of more genuinely independent influence the French have shown by helping to forge naval and energy agreements across the Mediterranean, and possibly having even helped to deter Erdogan in doing that. Britain could do something similar in the North, if it wanted.
Yes, the French can genuinely independently allow the Wagner group to spread its control over large parts of Africa, and genuinely independently leave Lebanon in the lurch, and genuinely independently offend most of Eastern Europe with overtures to Putin…
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
This is just dogma, and it's based on the implicitly anti-American perspective that defines 'genuine' influence as doing something in opposition to the US.
I think this is a reasonable point. We are and do coordinate with the US a great deal, and I do think we have played a particular role as part of that coordination, but that is taken too far to imply essentally that without clear differentiation then individual national influence cannot exist. But if that is so then really only 2-3 nations have any influence at all. Many do, if lesser in nature.
Well, look at France. . It closely co-ordinates with the US, but has also done all sorts of things completely separately from the US, unlike modern Britain. Sarkozy and Macron have created the "EU Med" club, for instance, essentially a forum for France to project its power across the Mediterranean. Britain could choose to take similar steps independently from the US, while still closely co-ordinating with the US, but chooses not to do that.
Chooses is the point. It doesn't mean there is no genuine influence because there's less differentiation.
I wouldn't agree there.
The capacity to diverge, sometimes, also illustrates greater independence overall.
That's a slightly different point to whether any genuine influence exists without a specific arbitrary level of divergence. After all, plenty of people will likely claim no genuine influence for ones who do exercise that capacity more than the UK does, if they align on a specific issue eg NATO.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
If you knew history, you'd know that they did. They rioted and made their views known.
Comments
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/39417?redirectedFrom=Conquer#eid
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conquering
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquering
Banks accused of 'measly' interest rates on savings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65844839
I'd have more sympathy with the banks if they weren't whacking up rates on borrowing like there was no tomorrow. But they are, while clearly using oligopoly power to keep the rates on savings low.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
We're discussing an active event in world history. That involves a lot of speculation at times, as well as sharing of information we've seen elsewhere and trying to understand the implications.
If you're not interested then talk about something else, but your petty insults are wearisome and absurdly self-important and pompous.
Honestly, you're criticising the off-topic subject of conversation on an obscure internet chat platform. Get a life.
What you are doing is concern-trolling. You affect concern for young men being killed, while shifting the blame away from the invader to those who offer support to Ukraine.
For all the reasons one might not like him domestically, the UK response to the Ukraine war was very much noticed by the Ukranians. There is now a Boris Johnson St in Kiev.
Rahane could do with big runs on a personal level as well.
The conquest of Everest?
Oh and go and look up the Conquest of Mecca - which is actually known in Arabic as the non violent or peaceful conquest.
Also, I might add you are talking bollocks about the conquest of Mecca. The Muslim army met no resistance because their opponents saw it was hopeless and surrendered. And even then, quite a lot were executed, rather more than the four claimed by Islamic sources.
There is no way that a reasonable person could see the King of Scotland becoming simultaneously the King of England as an English conquest of Scotland. None. There were other occasions later that could quite reasonably be described as a conquest, but not 1603.
Stop behaving like Hyufd. You're better than this.
In passing, I am almost always totally ignored under the present system. Even worse, "my MP", my representative in Parliament, speaks and votes against my view all the time.
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
In fact Iraq has turned out better than Afghanistan where the Taliban are back in power with Bin Laden not even killed there anyway but in Pakistan
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
It's not as slam dunk a win as Paterson would have had if he were not an enormous bellend who quite outright, but I think he'd be confident.
My initial prediction was that he'd end up with a suspension below petition threshold, but after Ferrier I'm less confident.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, and was also primarily there to discuss Ukraine, with nonsense designed for the UK tabloids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation any further, in the same way.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1666821148431257603/photo/1
I don't see how it helps clarify or understand events to make that word so broad like that.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/rishi-sunak-eu-officials-prime-minister-small-boats-plan-2391064
To put it another way, there is no level of collegiality short of crawling on our hands and knees begging for humanitarian aid and immediate admittance to the Eurozone that would elicit a positive comment from Fabian Zuleeg.
Britain has to choose to restore its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
However, in practice if the committee says 10 days or less, Labour won't win a vote to increase it to >10.
If the committee says 11 days or more, Johnson supporters won't win a vote to reduce it... unless Sunak sponsors that and makes reducing the sentence a whipped vote. And why on earth would he do that?
Your certainty on the issue doesn't mean others feel as sure. It's fair to say that No currently has a narrowish lead. I'd hate to put any money on where that will be in six months' time.
The article says that the Speaker has to decide whether or not to order a referendum.
SFAICS he does not have this discretion (Section 5 of the Recall Act) but must take particular action which brings about the process.
Someone will tell me if I am wrong!
More Scots than English on the government side at Culloden.
.
It closely co-ordinates with the US, but has also done all sorts of things completely separately from the US, unlike modern Britain. Sarkozy and Macron have created the "EU Med" club, for instance, essentially a forum for France to project its power across the Mediterranean. Britain could choose to take similar steps independently from the US, while still closely co-ordinating with the US, but chooses not to do that.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
I think you are right about reducing the sentence being very difficult - Sunak can whip but I think there'd be enough rebels to see it over the line with every opposition MP voting in favour of the harsher sentence. There's plenty of strong anti Boris votes as well as fans (and the larger group in the middle who want a quiet life and will do as ordered).
Carl Sagan being interviewed about aliens and UFOs back in 1966.
https://twitter.com/1517fund/status/1666510140961333255
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
As for not following our lead, that's precisely what the EU did on supplying arms to Ukraine. I gave you the quote from the German finance minister when the invasion started...
Most were sceptical - including Ukraine - and some flat out refused to believe it, but the alert undoubtedly helped Ukraine prepare.
Far too many people prepared to ignore the tallied votes to make me comfortable, and then there was 2016 too, and the polls are frankly not great for Biden.
But between us we have an optimistic take on two of the most important issues of the next year or two, so there's that.
So I wouldn't describe that as the kind of more genuinely independent influence the French have shown by helping to forge naval and energy agreements across the Mediterranean, and possibly having even helped to deter Erdogan in so doing, for instance. Britain could do something similar in the North, if it wanted.
The capacity to diverge, sometimes, also illustrates greater independence overall.
It's beautiful tonight.
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/gEKpzA/norske-eksperter-om-ukrainsk-demning-kan-se-en-klar-eksplosjon
The article says that the seismic data shows an explosion, not a collapse.