I really can’t see how, after the last four and half years, the breakup of the UK can be avoided. What a historical irony that a Brexit intended to make Britain ‘great again’ actually brings about the demise of ‘Great’ Britain.
More from Brexit
Two excellent questions at the end of a very sensible thread summarising the post-Brexit UK FP debate. My own take at attempting to offer an answer - ahead of the IR is as follow:
1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:
A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;
3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;
5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;
Both the @ChathamHouse and @Policy_Exchange reports are excellent and leave a healthy tension to the UK foreign policy debate. I\u2019m left with two questions that won\u2019t go away. Is the first underestimating how the world has changed. Is the second overestimating Britain\u2019s capacity?
— Ben Judah (@b_judah) January 11, 2021
1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:
A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;
3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;
5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;
1/ A challenge in parsing Brexit news is that businesses are facing overlapping types of challenges that can be difficult to separate.
The key questions are:
1⃣ Given the model of Brexit chosen, could this have been prevented, and by whom?
2⃣ Can it get better?
2/ To put those another way:
"If you knew everything you needed to know and did everything right, is your existing business and delivery model still viable and competitive?"
The answer to that question determines if for you the problem is Brexit, or how Brexit was delivered.
3/ Some of the challenges at borders could have been prevented while still having the exact same model of Brexit (No Single Market, No Customs Union, but an FTA).
That they're appearing is an implementation failure and you can fully support Brexit but still be pissed about them.
4/ Examples include:
1) Government guidance and IT systems being ready earlier and/or easier to navigate;
2) More support for businesses, and more affordable bespoke help;
3) More time to prepare and better government communication about what preparation actually requires.
5/ This thread you've all seen from Daniel Lambert the wine merchant (primarily) deals with problems in this category.
There's no policy reason he can't export his product, but the procedures are a nightmare to navigate and he's badly under-supported.
The key questions are:
1⃣ Given the model of Brexit chosen, could this have been prevented, and by whom?
2⃣ Can it get better?
#Brexit & #fishing: True to their word, it looks like British #seafood exporters are taking their concerns around #trade to the streets of London #Brexality pic.twitter.com/CIqmDQR69d
— Bryce Stewart (@BD_Stew) January 18, 2021
2/ To put those another way:
"If you knew everything you needed to know and did everything right, is your existing business and delivery model still viable and competitive?"
The answer to that question determines if for you the problem is Brexit, or how Brexit was delivered.
3/ Some of the challenges at borders could have been prevented while still having the exact same model of Brexit (No Single Market, No Customs Union, but an FTA).
That they're appearing is an implementation failure and you can fully support Brexit but still be pissed about them.
4/ Examples include:
1) Government guidance and IT systems being ready earlier and/or easier to navigate;
2) More support for businesses, and more affordable bespoke help;
3) More time to prepare and better government communication about what preparation actually requires.
5/ This thread you've all seen from Daniel Lambert the wine merchant (primarily) deals with problems in this category.
There's no policy reason he can't export his product, but the procedures are a nightmare to navigate and he's badly under-supported.
Over the past 15 days I have not only been running my company as normal but I have been faced with largest threat to its future since it began in 1992. This is #Brexit & here is my thread on just how bad things are getting. 1/26
— Daniel Lambert (Wines). \U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1eb\U0001f1f7\U0001f3f4\U000e0067\U000e0062\U000e0077\U000e006c\U000e0073\U000e007f\U0001f347\U0001f942 (@DanielLambert29) January 16, 2021