Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
HYUFD has made over 110,000 posts since pb started counting these things, and probably at least as many before that. It would be a remarkable use of resources by CCHQ if they were monitoring EVERYTHING he said.
In the 3731 days since PB started counting, HYUFD has posted 110,561 posts, which is a smidge under 30 per day. So he’s been posting, on average, at a rate of more than one post an hour for just over 10 years. That’s not actually human. He really is an AI language model.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Or the Thai Monarchy. The underlying issue is that good constitutions can add a higher bar to takeover but what really matters is a healthy democratic culture and the moral decency of the populace.
If Putin had been under a Tsar, he would have been the fall guy long ago for bad things that have happened during his 'reign'. I don't disagree about the importance of culture, but the structure of institutions matters too.
Strongly disagree. There is a long tradition across Eastern Europe of poor people hating the nobles and believing the Emperor is a good man that would intervene if only he knew of their struggles.
Pretty much everywhere that has autocratic rulers. Apparently, in Ancient Egypt, “if only the Pharaoh knew what his advisors were up to“ was a thing. Certainly the Pharaohs used the old “sacrifice the first minister to the mob” trick on occasion.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections.
. . . . Because of the ruling, new maps are likely in Alabama and Louisiana . . . .
The outcome was unexpected in that the court had allowed the challenged Alabama map to be used for the 2022 elections, and in arguments last October the justices appeared willing to make it harder to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The chief justice himself suggested last year that he was open to changes in the way courts weigh discrimination claims under the part of the law known as section 2. But on Thursday, Roberts wrote that the court was declining “to recast our section 2 case law as Alabama requests.”
Roberts also was part of conservative high-court majorities in earlier cases that made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021.
The other four conservative justices dissented Thursday. . . .
The case stems from challenges to Alabama’s seven-district congressional map, which included one district in which Black voters form a large enough majority that they have the power to elect their preferred candidate. The challengers said that one district is not enough, pointing out that overall, Alabama’s population is more than 25% Black. . . .
Louisiana’s congressional map had separately been identified as probably discriminatory by a lower court. That map, too, remained in effect last year and now will have to be redrawn.
The National Redistricting Foundation said in a statement that its pending lawsuits over congressional districts in Georgia and Texas also could be affected.
Separately, the Supreme Court in the fall will hear South Carolina’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that found Republican lawmakers stripped Black voters from a district to make it safer for a Republican candidate. . . .
Partisan politics also underlies the Alabama case. . . . The judges found that Alabama concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it much more difficult to elect more than one candidate of their choice.
Despite all the gerrymandering, the House result in 2022 was overall, fair.
Republican and Democratic seat numbers matched each party’s vote share.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
There is no possible comparison between the pre-WW1 monarchs and the constitutional monarchs of today. The only valid comparison would be between post WW1 monarchs and their contemporary presidents. On that basis monarchy comes out way ahead.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Or the Thai Monarchy. The underlying issue is that good constitutions can add a higher bar to takeover but what really matters is a healthy democratic culture and the moral decency of the populace.
If Putin had been under a Tsar, he would have been the fall guy long ago for bad things that have happened during his 'reign'. I don't disagree about the importance of culture, but the structure of institutions matters too.
Strongly disagree. There is a long tradition across Eastern Europe of poor people hating the nobles and believing the Emperor is a good man that would intervene if only he knew of their struggles.
We still see that in the vogue of groups soldiers or their wives recording messages for Putin about their plight.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
De facto this means giving China hegemony over most of Eurasia.
Not if the breakaway states joined the Western alliance one by one. The best example is Yugoslavia. As piece by piece became Western aligned, even Serbia eventually realised the game was up.
That happened in a very different international context when 'West' was still seen as 'best' and had the economic and cultural self-confidence to back it up. I'm not sure that's the case now.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Not if that monarch is circumscribed by law in the way they are in modern European monarchies. Indeed both a PM and an elected ceremonial president could try to claim some sort of democratic mandate for their actions. Something a monarch cannot do.
The monarch serves the purpose of representing the country above the level of politics. Ultimately they represent the People rather than the Government. Hence the reason that it is important that our armed forces swear allegience to the monarch, and through them to the people, rather than to any one partisan government.
Laws don't stop powerful strongmen taking over if the public believe in them. And the aura of monarchy is something that can rally people behind them. "I will do whats in the interest of the people and nation instead of these damn politicians" has been the narrative of coup leaders everywhere.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
'Far better off' is a gross exaggeration. They were not noticeably better off under Communism and there were times when things were worse than they had been under the Tsars, notably 1920-22, 1929-33 and 1941-47 (the last not really being Stalin's fault).
Stalin killed far more than Nicholas II ever did and Putin is getting on that way too having caused the invasion of Ukraine
In the one year and six months of the Russo-Japanese War, Russia lost approximately as many (50k dead, 150k+ wounded) as they have done in the one year and three months of the Russo-Ukrainian War, with a population of 73 million rather than 144 million. And then there was also the small matter of the First World War.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
I think the relationship between most Western democracies is a more than a purely transactional one.
We would not side with China if they offered us back Hong Kong, or Russia, if they offered us territory in the Baltic.
Because we know it would not be in our interests to do so. That is not really pertinent to the discussion.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
HYUFD has made over 110,000 posts since pb started counting these things, and probably at least as many before that. It would be a remarkable use of resources by CCHQ if they were monitoring EVERYTHING he said.
In the 3731 days since PB started counting, HYUFD has posted 110,561 posts, which is a smidge under 30 per day. So he’s been posting, on average, at a rate of more than one post an hour for just over 10 years. That’s not actually human. He really is an AI language model.
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Seal. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error!"
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
HYUFD has made over 110,000 posts since pb started counting these things, and probably at least as many before that. It would be a remarkable use of resources by CCHQ if they were monitoring EVERYTHING he said.
In the 3731 days since PB started counting, HYUFD has posted 110,561 posts, which is a smidge under 30 per day. So he’s been posting, on average, at a rate of more than one post an hour for just over 10 years. That’s not actually human. He really is an AI language model.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
'Far better off' is a gross exaggeration. They were not noticeably better off under Communism and there were times when things were worse than they had been under the Tsars, notably 1920-22, 1929-33 and 1941-47 (the last not really being Stalin's fault).
Stalin killed far more than Nicholas II ever did and Putin is getting on that way too having caused the invasion of Ukraine
In the one year and six months of the Russo-Japanese War, Russia lost approximately as many (50k dead, 150k+ wounded) as they have done in the one year and three months of the Russo-Ukrainian War, with a population of 73 million rather than 144 million. And then there was also the small matter of the First World War.
Whilst I agree with you, I don't think HYUFD was referring to casualties of war killed by the enemy but to the state actively killing its own population. They are two very different things.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Monarchies are unelected however.
Not necessarily. Why do you think the Electors of Hanover were called that?
If it is an electric motorbike that's the third teenager killed riding an illegal bike and trying to get away from the police inside three weeks.
The whole situation regarding electric bikes - proper motorcycles/scooters and assisted pedal bikes alike - is a raging bin fire that the government needs to sort out.
Many electric pedal bikes can go as fast or faster than 50cc mopeds, but unlike a moped don't require a license, training, insurance or a helmet. No wonder kids are dying on them.
Electric motorcycles and scooters are almost as bad. You can legally ride up to a 125cc petrol bike on one day's training, but those are limited to 14hp engines so novice riders can't take a bend at 90mph and splatter themselves on the scenery. Going above 14hp requires passing three tests and getting a full license.
But there are electric '125cc equivalents' on the market that have peak power outputs up to 32hp; these things are far faster than a petrol 125 and have utterly insane acceleration. The only reason we don't see regular reports of teenagers killing their silly selves on these things is because they're still quite rare. But that will change.
None of the above are as bad as the wankers in lycra who think their pushbikes are even more above the law than the BMWs and Audis they drive to their miserable middle management jobs.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
Some fair points here, and this is reminding me of the very strange statement by Blair that Britain had to pay a "blood price" for its <<special relationship>> with the US, by supporting the War in Iraq.
In retrospect, and considering attitudes to the Iraq War in the US itself afterwards, that looks like fanatical dogma. Britain gained very little from supporting that war, and the US would not have dropped its defence and security co-operation with Britain if it had not supported it, as over Vietnam.
The Iraq War has removed Saddam and replaced him with an elected government, had Saddam still been in power now he would be actively supporting Putin.
The Iraq War was far more successful than the Vietnam War and indeed Afghanistan too now the Taliban are back in power and Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan anyway
Much of this is debatable, although interestingly I agree that Iraq is closer than in recent decades to becoming a democracy, but the fact remains that Britain had no need to join, other than Blair and much of the British defence and security establishment's fearful idea that it had to. This was also enormously buttressed by outlets like the Telegraph, Mail and sun, and virtually all of the Conservative Party, at the time.
This was a bad and fearful miscalculation, and damaged Britain's security more than benefitting it.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
De facto this means giving China hegemony over most of Eurasia.
Not if the breakaway states joined the Western alliance one by one. The best example is Yugoslavia. As piece by piece became Western aligned, even Serbia eventually realised the game was up.
That happened in a very different international context when 'West' was still seen as 'best' and had the economic and cultural self-confidence to back it up. I'm not sure that's the case now.
The West did not have that confidence in the 1970s and 1980s either, when we worried we were falling behind the communists. But ultimately democracy creates better outcomes than autocracy, so while democracies stumble, autocracies have full blown crises. China's shit show over COVID shows that.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
Serfdom wasn't abolished until 1861 officially, persisting in some regions as late as 1892.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
There is no possible comparison between the pre-WW1 monarchs and the constitutional monarchs of today. The only valid comparison would be between post WW1 monarchs and their contemporary presidents. On that basis monarchy comes out way ahead.
Tsar Alexander III... or Grover Cleveland. Sorry, I'm going to go with Cleveland.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Monarchies are unelected however.
Not necessarily. Why do you think the Electors of Hanover were called that?
Just for the record I will point out again that had one of my ancestors made a different decision then it is entirely possible we would have referred to the Tyndall Empire rather than the Hapsburg Empire.
And I am sure we can all agree this would have been, in the words of Sellar and Yeatman, a bad thing.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Monarchies are unelected however.
Not necessarily. Why do you think the Electors of Hanover were called that?
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
There is no possible comparison between the pre-WW1 monarchs and the constitutional monarchs of today. The only valid comparison would be between post WW1 monarchs and their contemporary presidents. On that basis monarchy comes out way ahead.
Tsar Alexander III... or Grover Cleveland. Sorry, I'm going to go with Cleveland.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Monarchies are unelected however.
Not necessarily. Why do you think the Electors of Hanover were called that?
The electors of Hanover were called that because of who they elected... and they elected a position that wasn't a head of state.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
There is no possible comparison between the pre-WW1 monarchs and the constitutional monarchs of today. The only valid comparison would be between post WW1 monarchs and their contemporary presidents. On that basis monarchy comes out way ahead.
Tsar Alexander III... or Grover Cleveland. Sorry, I'm going to go with Cleveland.
Woodrow Wilson... or Kaiser Willem II? Jeez, l'm going with the Prez again!
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
There is no possible comparison between the pre-WW1 monarchs and the constitutional monarchs of today. The only valid comparison would be between post WW1 monarchs and their contemporary presidents. On that basis monarchy comes out way ahead.
Tsar Alexander III... or Grover Cleveland. Sorry, I'm going to go with Cleveland.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Monarchies are unelected however.
Not necessarily. Why do you think the Electors of Hanover were called that?
The electors of Hanover were called that because of who they elected... and they elected a position that wasn't a head of state.
The Holy Roman Emperor was elected and was surely a head of state.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
When reading "Crime and Punishment" I was struck by how much more lenient the mid nineteenth Tsarist justice system than our own. In London Raskolinikov would have gone to the gallows.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
Serfdom wasn't abolished until 1861 officially, persisting in some regions as late as 1892.
I always find it strange when reading Chekov or Tolstoy, how many of those former serfs seemed to think the emancipation was a bad thing. Assuming of course that what they were writing was an accurate representation of popular feeling at the time.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
'Far better off' is a gross exaggeration. They were not noticeably better off under Communism and there were times when things were worse than they had been under the Tsars, notably 1920-22, 1929-33 and 1941-47 (the last not really being Stalin's fault).
Stalin killed far more than Nicholas II ever did and Putin is getting on that way too having caused the invasion of Ukraine
In the one year and six months of the Russo-Japanese War, Russia lost approximately as many (50k dead, 150k+ wounded) as they have done in the one year and three months of the Russo-Ukrainian War, with a population of 73 million rather than 144 million. And then there was also the small matter of the First World War.
Tsar Nicholas II did not invade Japan and WW1 was started by the Austrians invading Serbia and Germany invading Belgium.
By the end of the Ukraine war far more Russians will likely have died than died in the Russo-Japanese war.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
When reading "Crime and Punishment" I was struck by how much more lenient the mid nineteenth Tsarist justice system than our own. In London Raskolinikov would have gone to the gallows.
Proof that draconian justice is necessary to create a liberal society?
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Not if that monarch is circumscribed by law in the way they are in modern European monarchies. Indeed both a PM and an elected ceremonial president could try to claim some sort of democratic mandate for their actions. Something a monarch cannot do.
The monarch serves the purpose of representing the country above the level of politics. Ultimately they represent the People rather than the Government. Hence the reason that it is important that our armed forces swear allegience to the monarch, and through them to the people, rather than to any one partisan government.
Laws don't stop powerful strongmen taking over if the public believe in them. And the aura of monarchy is something that can rally people behind them. "I will do whats in the interest of the people and nation instead of these damn politicians" has been the narrative of coup leaders everywhere.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
Serfdom wasn't abolished until 1861 officially, persisting in some regions as late as 1892.
I don’t think that conflicts with my point.
Peter the Great was a shit of the first order. But, he was a genius.
Elizabeth and Catherine used execution and torture far more sparingly than most of Europe did. (C18 th Governments had largely rejected torture as a means of determining guilt, but still used it as a punishment).
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
'Far better off' is a gross exaggeration. They were not noticeably better off under Communism and there were times when things were worse than they had been under the Tsars, notably 1920-22, 1929-33 and 1941-47 (the last not really being Stalin's fault).
Stalin killed far more than Nicholas II ever did and Putin is getting on that way too having caused the invasion of Ukraine
In the one year and six months of the Russo-Japanese War, Russia lost approximately as many (50k dead, 150k+ wounded) as they have done in the one year and three months of the Russo-Ukrainian War, with a population of 73 million rather than 144 million. And then there was also the small matter of the First World War.
Tsar Nicholas II did not invade Japan and WW1 was started by the Austrians invading Serbia and Germany invading Belgium.
By the end of the Ukraine war far more Russians will likely have died than died in the Russo-Japanese war.
Stalin of course killed millions
Oh God preserve us from the HYUFDisation of the origins of WWI
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Not if that monarch is circumscribed by law in the way they are in modern European monarchies. Indeed both a PM and an elected ceremonial president could try to claim some sort of democratic mandate for their actions. Something a monarch cannot do.
The monarch serves the purpose of representing the country above the level of politics. Ultimately they represent the People rather than the Government. Hence the reason that it is important that our armed forces swear allegience to the monarch, and through them to the people, rather than to any one partisan government.
Laws don't stop powerful strongmen taking over if the public believe in them. And the aura of monarchy is something that can rally people behind them. "I will do whats in the interest of the people and nation instead of these damn politicians" has been the narrative of coup leaders everywhere.
And yet it doesn't happen.
It hasn't happened in this country, it has happened in other countries.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
There is no possible comparison between the pre-WW1 monarchs and the constitutional monarchs of today. The only valid comparison would be between post WW1 monarchs and their contemporary presidents. On that basis monarchy comes out way ahead.
Tsar Alexander III... or Grover Cleveland. Sorry, I'm going to go with Cleveland.
I said post WW1.
Ah so you did. I'm not really sure why though.
Because the world changes and the constitutional monarchies of today have evolved. The same cannot necessarily be said for presidencies.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
There is no possible comparison between the pre-WW1 monarchs and the constitutional monarchs of today. The only valid comparison would be between post WW1 monarchs and their contemporary presidents. On that basis monarchy comes out way ahead.
Tsar Alexander III... or Grover Cleveland. Sorry, I'm going to go with Cleveland.
I said post WW1.
Ah so you did. I'm not really sure why though.
Because the world changes and the constitutional monarchies of today have evolved. The same cannot necessarily be said for presidencies.
That seems a strange thing to think. There have been ten amendments to the US Constitution since WWI. 38 to the Irish. That's evolution.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
The US' closest ally is in reality of course Australia not us. Australia fought with the US in Vietnam as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf War, the Korean War and WW1 and WW2 and is allied with the US against Putin and China too
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
When reading "Crime and Punishment" I was struck by how much more lenient the mid nineteenth Tsarist justice system than our own. In London Raskolinikov would have gone to the gallows.
Exile to Siberia was usually preferred to execution.
Simon Sebag Montefiore details how Catherine almost always sought alternatives to execution, and if she thought execution was unavoidable, tried to avoid torture.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
Britain might have been supporting Ukraine for a long time, but every step of recent policy has been pre-agreed with the US.
I don't actually happen to disagree with that policy in this case, but that is not genuinely independent policy, from whichever angle one tries to spin it.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Not if that monarch is circumscribed by law in the way they are in modern European monarchies. Indeed both a PM and an elected ceremonial president could try to claim some sort of democratic mandate for their actions. Something a monarch cannot do.
The monarch serves the purpose of representing the country above the level of politics. Ultimately they represent the People rather than the Government. Hence the reason that it is important that our armed forces swear allegience to the monarch, and through them to the people, rather than to any one partisan government.
Laws don't stop powerful strongmen taking over if the public believe in them. And the aura of monarchy is something that can rally people behind them. "I will do whats in the interest of the people and nation instead of these damn politicians" has been the narrative of coup leaders everywhere.
And yet it doesn't happen.
It hasn't happened in this country, it has happened in other countries.
Which modern European monarchy (the specific term I used in the comment which Will challenged) has this happened in? Actually, though I have not looked in detail so there may be exceptions, which modern constitutional monarchy has this happened in anywhere in the world post WW2? And how many presidencies has this happened in during the same period?
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I have a lot of time for Macron. I certainly prefer him to pretty much any other recent former French Presidents or any of the likely successors.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
Did we ? Brexit arose at exactly at a moment when both the British and American populist right were linked by the nexus of the same figures.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
Serfdom wasn't abolished until 1861 officially, persisting in some regions as late as 1892.
I always find it strange when reading Chekov or Tolstoy, how many of those former serfs seemed to think the emancipation was a bad thing. Assuming of course that what they were writing was an accurate representation of popular feeling at the time.
Feudalism did work both ways, and serfs were technically not owned like chattel slaves, they belonged to the land, not the landowner.
Emancipation had some features similar to the Enclosures in England. A lot of serfs lost access to their land, and became poor day laborours
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
Did we ? Brexit arose at exactly at a moment when both the British and American populist right were linked by the nexus of the same figures.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
It was certainly against the wishes of the Obama administration in power in DC in June 2016, the current US President of course a member of that Obama administration too
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
HYUFD has made over 110,000 posts since pb started counting these things, and probably at least as many before that. It would be a remarkable use of resources by CCHQ if they were monitoring EVERYTHING he said.
In the 3731 days since PB started counting, HYUFD has posted 110,561 posts, which is a smidge under 30 per day. So he’s been posting, on average, at a rate of more than one post an hour for just over 10 years. That’s not actually human. He really is an AI language model.
Speaking for myself, I cannot stand quantity over quality.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
Britain might have been supporting Ukraine for a long time, but every step of recent policy has been pre-agreed with the US.
I don't actually happen to disagree with that policy in this case, but that is not genuinely independent policy, from whichever angle one tries to spin it.
Its not remotely correct that every step of recent policy has been pre-agreed with the US. As recently as December 2019 the President of America was withholding support to Ukraine while the UK continued to supply it That is by definition genuinely independent policy.
The fact that we are co-operating with America during the war is because we are allies, not because we lack independence.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
HYUFD has made over 110,000 posts since pb started counting these things, and probably at least as many before that. It would be a remarkable use of resources by CCHQ if they were monitoring EVERYTHING he said.
In the 3731 days since PB started counting, HYUFD has posted 110,561 posts, which is a smidge under 30 per day. So he’s been posting, on average, at a rate of more than one post an hour for just over 10 years. That’s not actually human. He really is an AI language model.
Speaking for myself, I cannot stand quantity over quality.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
Did we ? Brexit arose at exactly at a moment when both the British and American populist right were linked by the nexus of the same figures.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
It had already happened by then. Trump didn't become President until 6 months after Brexit.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The real problem was that Nicholas II was incompetent.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
Serfdom wasn't abolished until 1861 officially, persisting in some regions as late as 1892.
I always find it strange when reading Chekov or Tolstoy, how many of those former serfs seemed to think the emancipation was a bad thing. Assuming of course that what they were writing was an accurate representation of popular feeling at the time.
Feudalism did work both ways, and serfs were technically not owned like chattel slaves, they belonged to the land, not the landowner.
Emancipation had some features similar to the Enclosures in England. A lot of serfs lost access to their land, and became poor day laborours
Feudalism in theory included obligations on the upper orders. Human nature being what it is I assume some tried to live up to that, a lot more did not, and the whole thing didn't really work even if they did try.
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
Never hopefully. It is a stupid policy. Deal with demand and supply will follow. Strangle supply and demand will simply look elsewhere. We won't burn one gallon less hydrocarbons because of ending North Sea drilling. We will just end importing it from other countries which wll mean more, rather than less, carbon emissions
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I have a lot of time for Macron. I certainly prefer him to pretty much any other recent former French Presidents or any of the likely successors.
He may not be 'widely liked' on here but it feels like most considered he was still the best candidate in the most recent elections. And whilst of course he engages in rabble rousing using the UK, that's hardly unexpected to some degree, nor unreciprocated. An interesting and in some ways unconventional leader.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
Did we ? Brexit arose at exactly at a moment when both the British and American populist right were linked by the nexus of the same figures.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
It was certainly against the wishes of the Obama administration in power in DC in June 2016, the current US President of course a member of that Obama administration too
Yes, and in that clip you hear Cameron also pushing the same recommendation: stay in. The evidence you offered supports the idea that British government policy follows American.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
The US' closest ally is in reality of course Australia not us. Australia fought with the US in Vietnam as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf War, the Korean War and WW1 and WW2 and is allied with the US against Putin and China too
Yes, Australians of my grandparent's generation saw that big shift in 1941, when America backed Australia in the Battle of the Coral Sea etc, while Churchill delayed the return of the Australian divisions from Egypt to defend Australia. Even more so after the humiliation of Singapore showed that only the USA could protect Australia.
One of my father's cousins was an officer in the Australian forces in Vietnam, though swiftly became disillusioned with the war.
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
When oil products are no long required, which might be never given how crucial they are for non-burning reasons.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop using oil and develop alternatives as a priority. But I agree with you that this is not a wise approach in achieving that goal
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I have a lot of time for Macron. I certainly prefer him to pretty much any other recent former French Presidents or any of the likely successors.
He may not be 'widely liked' on here but it feels like most considered he was still the best candidate in the most recent elections. And whilst of course he engages in rabble rousing using the UK, that's hardly unexpected to some degree, nor unreciprocated. An interesting and in some ways unconventional leader.
I think he has been good for France. He has not been afraid to take on vested interests and try to make his country a better place. I have a lot of time for him.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
Did we ? Brexit arose at exactly at a moment when both the British and American populist right were linked by the nexus of the same figures.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
It had already happened by then. Trump didn't become President until 6 months after Brexit.
None of the above are as bad as the wankers in lycra who think their pushbikes are even more above the law than the BMWs and Audis they drive to their miserable middle management jobs.
Yeah, wish I could disagree. I'm fairly amiable mostly, but Cyclists drive me crazy with their suicidal antics.
Last week I almost t-boned a guy who thought it was wise to cycle out into the road without looking. I stopped and explained in blunt terms that a collision with a 130kg scooter moving at 40mph, ridden by someone wearing a helmet and safety gear, is going to work out a lot more painful for him than me. But I don't think much of it got through...
Of course, had we collided my insurance would have to pay for any repairs because he doesn't bloody have any - which boils my piss something terrible.
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
When oil products are no long required, which might be never given how crucial they are for non-burning reasons.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop using oil and develop alternatives as a priority. But I agree with you that this is not a wise approach in achieving that goal
Continuing drilling for oil will in no way stop us developing alternatives. Indeed a lot of the offshore renewables industry would have found it a lot harder and a lot more expensive to get off the ground if the necessary infrastructure wasn't already there servicing the oil and gas industry.
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
When oil products are no long required, which might be never given how crucial they are for non-burning reasons.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop using oil and develop alternatives as a priority. But I agree with you that this is not a wise approach in achieving that goal
Continuing drilling for oil will in no way stop us developing alternatives. Indeed a lot of the offshore renewables industry would have found ita lot harder and a lot more expensive to get off the ground if the necessary infrastructure wasn't already there services the oil and gas industry.
Do you still believe I am an idiot as you told me twice the other day?
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
When oil products are no long required, which might be never given how crucial they are for non-burning reasons.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop using oil and develop alternatives as a priority. But I agree with you that this is not a wise approach in achieving that goal
Continuing drilling for oil will in no way stop us developing alternatives. Indeed a lot of the offshore renewables industry would have found ita lot harder and a lot more expensive to get off the ground if the necessary infrastructure wasn't already there services the oil and gas industry.
Do you still believe I am an idiot as you told me twice the other day?
I call you an idiot so often I forget which specific reason that was about
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
Did we ? Brexit arose at exactly at a moment when both the British and American populist right were linked by the nexus of the same figures.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
It had already happened by then. Trump didn't become President until 6 months after Brexit.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I have a lot of time for Macron. I certainly prefer him to pretty much any other recent former French Presidents or any of the likely successors.
He may not be 'widely liked' on here but it feels like most considered he was still the best candidate in the most recent elections. And whilst of course he engages in rabble rousing using the UK, that's hardly unexpected to some degree, nor unreciprocated. An interesting and in some ways unconventional leader.
I would not dispute that he was the best available.
Melanchon is a loon, and Le Pen way too sympathetic to Putin.
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
When oil products are no long required, which might be never given how crucial they are for non-burning reasons.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop using oil and develop alternatives as a priority. But I agree with you that this is not a wise approach in achieving that goal
Continuing drilling for oil will in no way stop us developing alternatives. Indeed a lot of the offshore renewables industry would have found ita lot harder and a lot more expensive to get off the ground if the necessary infrastructure wasn't already there services the oil and gas industry.
Do you still believe I am an idiot as you told me twice the other day?
I call you an idiot so often I forget which specific reason that was about
This language is beneath you Richard, we can disagree amicably without resorting to this, surely
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
When oil products are no long required, which might be never given how crucial they are for non-burning reasons.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop using oil and develop alternatives as a priority. But I agree with you that this is not a wise approach in achieving that goal
Continuing drilling for oil will in no way stop us developing alternatives. Indeed a lot of the offshore renewables industry would have found it a lot harder and a lot more expensive to get off the ground if the necessary infrastructure wasn't already there servicing the oil and gas industry.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I have a lot of time for Macron. I certainly prefer him to pretty much any other recent former French Presidents or any of the likely successors.
He may not be 'widely liked' on here but it feels like most considered he was still the best candidate in the most recent elections. And whilst of course he engages in rabble rousing using the UK, that's hardly unexpected to some degree, nor unreciprocated. An interesting and in some ways unconventional leader.
I think he has been good for France. He has not been afraid to take on vested interests and try to make his country a better place. I have a lot of time for him.
Whatever happened with the Pensions protests? I recall a lot of breathless commentary about how it was not going away and he was in trouble (at least as much as anyone barred from standing again could be), but at least on this side of the channel it seems to have quitened right down.
Edit
Saw this piece, which seems rather glass half full on the unions being 'losers but winners', but also includes a detail I don't recall coming across previously, that the retirement age already used to be that high 40 years ago, so the whole resistance seems even worse than I had thought. https://www.thelocal.fr/20230607/analysis-who-won-the-great-french-pension-battle
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
Ironically you are missing a highly significant thing that we did against the wishes of the US: Brexit. If you were correct about our subservience to US foreign policy, we would never have had a referendum, and would have found a way to reverse it after it went the 'wrong' way.
Did we ? Brexit arose at exactly at a moment when both the British and American populist right were linked by the nexus of the same figures.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
It had already happened by then. Trump didn't become President until 6 months after Brexit.
Both feel like a lifetime ago, whislt also being unending.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Monarchies are unelected however.
Not necessarily. Why do you think the Electors of Hanover were called that?
The electors of Hanover were called that because of who they elected... and they elected a position that wasn't a head of state.
The Holy Roman Emperor was elected and was surely a head of state.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Monarchies are unelected however.
Not necessarily. Why do you think the Electors of Hanover were called that?
Almost all monarchs are unelected. They get the post by heredity.
The best pedantic counterexample is the absolute monarch of the Vatican City State. He's elected.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
I have such a premonition where this is going to end up...
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I have a lot of time for Macron. I certainly prefer him to pretty much any other recent former French Presidents or any of the likely successors.
He may not be 'widely liked' on here but it feels like most considered he was still the best candidate in the most recent elections. And whilst of course he engages in rabble rousing using the UK, that's hardly unexpected to some degree, nor unreciprocated. An interesting and in some ways unconventional leader.
I would not dispute that he was the best available.
Melanchon is a loon, and Le Pen way too sympathetic to Putin.
Better a loon or somebody who's sympathetic to Putin than scum like Macron. Macron said he wanted to "emmerder" those who lawfully chose not to be vaccinated. He's not fit to be in the job.
Johnson was yesterdays man from the moment he was ousted. The idea he was coming back at any point was fanciful. Too many people are done with the circus. On that basis I think Trump wont win either.
Ukraine: With the suggestion that the Ukrainians are mouting a frontal assault on Russian lines, though its scale is not yet clear, south and south east of Zaporizhzhia, none of this will come as a surprise to the Russians. This direction of attack has long been seen as the most likely. It could be weeks before we get a decisive result but its fair to say the Ukrainians face notable challenges.
Still a surprising lack of Russian tactical aviation in all this. One area of supposed significant numerical advantage and yet unfocussed and lacking in scale.
"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.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the discussion earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Yes and you were wrong earlier in the day and are wrong again now.
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
There's an interesting piece in the Standard tonight about Macron's European Political Community and how it has grown and developed and now includes 45 European countries so far from just the EU (though EU leaders obviously attend).
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
Funnily enough as a Brexiteer I have a lot of time for Macron. I certainly prefer him to pretty much any other recent former French Presidents or any of the likely successors.
He may not be 'widely liked' on here but it feels like most considered he was still the best candidate in the most recent elections. And whilst of course he engages in rabble rousing using the UK, that's hardly unexpected to some degree, nor unreciprocated. An interesting and in some ways unconventional leader.
I think he has been good for France. He has not been afraid to take on vested interests and try to make his country a better place. I have a lot of time for him.
Whatever happened with the Pensions protests? I recall a lot of breathless commentary about how it was not going away and he was in trouble (at least as much as anyone barred from standing again could be), but at least on this side of the channel it seems to have quitened right down.
Edit
Saw this piece, which seems rather glass half full on the unions being 'losers but winners', but also includes a detail I don't recall coming across previously, that the retirement age already used to be that high 40 years ago, so the whole resistance seems even worse than I had thought. https://www.thelocal.fr/20230607/analysis-who-won-the-great-french-pension-battle
I think the protest was inevitable but I also think the changes were inevitable and necessary. WIth life expectancy increasing and helathy life expectancy likewise if not at the same rate, it seems logical that the amount of ourlives we spend working also needs to increase. I am reminded that in Norway the state pension age has been 67 for many decades.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
I have such a premonition where this is going to end up...
Ok playing devils advocate how do you resolve this if say it becomes clear russia cant be pushed out of ukraine. Do you arm ukraine forever. The dam attack was horrific so many lives lost do you want this to continue. Think of thosecpoor children drowning when the dam burst.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Perhaps you could airdrop leaflets over the six disputed territories and explain to residents and combatants the circumstances in which independence declarations and referendums on independence are acceptable to you.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
Johnson was yesterdays man from the moment he was ousted. The idea he was coming back at any point was fanciful. Too many people are done with the circus. On that basis I think Trump wont win either.
Ukraine: With the suggestion that the Ukrainians are mouting a frontal assault on Russian lines, though its scale is not yet clear, south and south east of Zaporizhzhia, none of this will come as a surprise to the Russians. This direction of attack has long been seen as the most likely. It could be weeks before we get a decisive result but its fair to say the Ukrainians face notable challenges.
Still a surprising lack of Russian tactical aviation in all this. One area of supposed significant numerical advantage and yet unfocussed and lacking in scale.
From what i hear sadly the ukrainian assaults are going very poorly with many men lost.
CNN: AFU suffered heavy losses in heavy equipment and soldiers, facing stronger than expected resistance from Russian troops One of the US officials called CNN losses, including American APCs MRAP, "significant". According to officials, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to push back part of the Russian forces in the Bakhmut region, but in the south of Ukraine, Russians armed with anti-tank missiles, grenades and mortars put up “fierce resistance”, breaking into defensive lines, which in some areas have several levels of depth and protected by minefields, which caused heavy damage to Ukrainian armored vehicles.
On topic. You looks like you and your friend Meeks have Called this very wrong TSE!
The Telegraph have Boris surviving the 10 day ban - the committee have thrown out the diary evidence - and rather than “spending the next few weeks bitterly denouncing the committee” Boris Johnson’s “outriders” seem suddenly buoyed and happy. The Telegraph has a Boris Supporter in Rishi’s cabinet boasting the Free Vote on 29th June not only draws a line under the entire Partygate affair once and for all, but in a cathartic moment, reunites the Tory Party.
I know some will say it’s just one paper, and it’s the Telegraph, but that’s precisely it - if any paper is going to be first to tell us the mood of Boris and his gang right now with the report in his hands, it’s going to be the Telegraph isn’t it?
My call is, as it’s now not likely to be a 10 day or more suspension voted on, the real vitriol for letting the Tories draw a final line under all this will fall upon the non Tory members of the special committee. An inglorious end for Harriet Harman is what the story will become.
Comments
Republican and Democratic seat numbers matched each party’s vote share.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
However nasty, the rulers from 1660 - 1825 were efficient.
A curious fact of 18th century Russia is that for two thirds of the century, it was ruled by women, and its penal code was more humane than that of England or France.
Compared to France's policies and alliance-building in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/38479/print
Sorry, I'm going to go with Cleveland.
And I am sure we can all agree this would have been, in the words of Sellar and Yeatman, a bad thing.
Jeez, l'm going with the Prez again!
I'm not really sure why though.
By the end of the Ukraine war far more Russians will likely have died than died in the Russo-Japanese war.
Stalin of course killed millions
You are repeating a myth normally spread by Putinistas like Putinguy1983 that any time we side with the Americans on something then we are not operating independently or making our own choices we are merely America's puppets.
That's not just self-deprecating, its utterly false too.
The UK was supporting Ukraine consistently in the past decade regardless of Prime Minister, across four different Prime Ministers. The UK has been a consistent and erstwhile ally, even at a time that the President of the United States was trying to extort Ukraine into helping steal the upcoming election. That is acting independently.
Independent doesn't mean loner, it means making your own decisions, which is what the UK is doing. If that means making the same decision America has made, its just because we are thinking alike, its not a lack of independence. Especially when we're firmer on that choice than they are.
Peter the Great was a shit of the first order. But, he was a genius.
Elizabeth and Catherine used execution and torture far more sparingly than most of Europe did. (C18 th Governments had largely rejected torture as a means of determining guilt, but still used it as a punishment).
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, whereas, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key and indispensable allies, we see that it is.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
Simon Sebag Montefiore details how Catherine almost always sought alternatives to execution, and if she thought execution was unavoidable, tried to avoid torture.
I don't actually happen to disagree with that policy in this case, but that is not genuinely independent policy, from whichever angle one tries to spin it.
Macron has correctly recognised the political need for sovereign European countries to work together and collaborate without the economic ties of the EU.
I realise Macron isn't widely liked on here but this could be as real lasting political legacy.
It wasn't in fact against the wishes of the American political leadership of 2016-2020, but entirely the opposite.
Emancipation had some features similar to the Enclosures in England. A lot of serfs lost access to their land, and became poor day laborours
From a terrifying day covering evacuations from Kherson. Key takeaways:
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CJbDz0ffjY
Key plank of new UK asylum law dropped to cut backlog
Home Office will no longer distinguish between people arriving by irregular means and other asylum seekers
ROFL
The fact that we are co-operating with America during the war is because we are allies, not because we lack independence.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
One of my father's cousins was an officer in the Australian forces in Vietnam, though swiftly became disillusioned with the war.
Last week I almost t-boned a guy who thought it was wise to cycle out into the road without looking. I stopped and explained in blunt terms that a collision with a 130kg scooter moving at 40mph, ridden by someone wearing a helmet and safety gear, is going to work out a lot more painful for him than me. But I don't think much of it got through...
Of course, had we collided my insurance would have to pay for any repairs because he doesn't bloody have any - which boils my piss something terrible.
Melanchon is a loon, and Le Pen way too sympathetic to Putin.
Edit
Saw this piece, which seems rather glass half full on the unions being 'losers but winners', but also includes a detail I don't recall coming across previously, that the retirement age already used to be that high 40 years ago, so the whole resistance seems even worse than I had thought.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20230607/analysis-who-won-the-great-french-pension-battle
The best pedantic counterexample is the absolute monarch of the Vatican City State. He's elected.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Macron said he wanted to "emmerder" those who lawfully chose not to be vaccinated. He's not fit to be in the job.
https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/old-whines-481202d1c7c7
Ukraine: With the suggestion that the Ukrainians are mouting a frontal assault on Russian lines, though its scale is not yet clear, south and south east of Zaporizhzhia, none of this will come as a surprise to the Russians. This direction of attack has long been seen as the most likely. It could be weeks before we get a decisive result but its fair to say the Ukrainians face notable challenges.
Still a surprising lack of Russian tactical aviation in all this. One area of supposed significant numerical advantage and yet unfocussed and lacking in scale.
CNN: AFU suffered heavy losses in heavy equipment and soldiers, facing stronger than expected resistance from Russian troops One of the US officials called CNN losses, including American APCs MRAP, "significant". According to officials, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to push back part of the Russian forces in the Bakhmut region, but in the south of Ukraine, Russians armed with anti-tank missiles, grenades and mortars put up “fierce resistance”, breaking into defensive lines, which in some areas have several levels of depth and protected by minefields, which caused heavy damage to Ukrainian armored vehicles.
https://twitter.com/djuric_zlatko/status/1666837336527708161?s=20
The Telegraph have Boris surviving the 10 day ban - the committee have thrown out the diary evidence - and rather than “spending the next few weeks bitterly denouncing the committee” Boris Johnson’s “outriders” seem suddenly buoyed and happy. The Telegraph has a Boris Supporter in Rishi’s cabinet boasting the Free Vote on 29th June not only draws a line under the entire Partygate affair once and for all, but in a cathartic moment, reunites the Tory Party.
I know some will say it’s just one paper, and it’s the Telegraph, but that’s precisely it - if any paper is going to be first to tell us the mood of Boris and his gang right now with the report in his hands, it’s going to be the Telegraph isn’t it?
My call is, as it’s now not likely to be a 10 day or more suspension voted on, the real vitriol for letting the Tories draw a final line under all this will fall upon the non Tory members of the special committee. An inglorious end for Harriet Harman is what the story will become.