The chart-topping band of @ChrisGiles_ @jimbrunsden (me on drums) have a piece up about the Brexit level playing field stand-off. But here's the thing: the opacity surrounding these (as so many) trade talks is making things much worse. Quick 🧵
More from Brexit
1. #Belfast #IrishSeaBorder There is no doubt that Brexit & the accompanying Irish Sea Border has destabilised the Union. Whilst the constitutional status of Northern Ireland has not changed, the fact of N.I remaining in the single market of the EU confirms it is”a place apart”.
2. Belfast Steve Aitkin/UUP, Mervyn Gibson/OrangeOrder,Jim Allister/TUV, Jamie Bryson/Unionist Blogger, etc etc, all see the Irish Sea Border & different economic arrangements for NI apart from Britain as a “betrayal”. It comes in a long line of Tory”betrayals”.
3. #Belfast They are correct. The Irish Sea Border & EU single market moves N.Ireland closer to the Republic of Ireland in terms of economic https://t.co/tdKZhjKhWu,it doesn’t change the constitutional status of NI but it is a huge psychological blow to a Unionism.
4. #Belfast The DUP utterly failed to “strengthen the Union”. Their attempt to hold the minority Tory Theresa May govt to ransom backfired spectacularly when Boris Johnson won a significant majority. Their arrogance led them to be isolated & resented in Westminster.
5. #Belfast How does Unionism now react to this?Retreat to the”Bunker”?Repeat the ineffective “Flag”street activism of the past? The Union can now only be saved imo by reaching out to the 5-10% swing vote that will decide a future Border Poll on Irish unification,& it is coming.
2. Belfast Steve Aitkin/UUP, Mervyn Gibson/OrangeOrder,Jim Allister/TUV, Jamie Bryson/Unionist Blogger, etc etc, all see the Irish Sea Border & different economic arrangements for NI apart from Britain as a “betrayal”. It comes in a long line of Tory”betrayals”.
3. #Belfast They are correct. The Irish Sea Border & EU single market moves N.Ireland closer to the Republic of Ireland in terms of economic https://t.co/tdKZhjKhWu,it doesn’t change the constitutional status of NI but it is a huge psychological blow to a Unionism.
4. #Belfast The DUP utterly failed to “strengthen the Union”. Their attempt to hold the minority Tory Theresa May govt to ransom backfired spectacularly when Boris Johnson won a significant majority. Their arrogance led them to be isolated & resented in Westminster.
5. #Belfast How does Unionism now react to this?Retreat to the”Bunker”?Repeat the ineffective “Flag”street activism of the past? The Union can now only be saved imo by reaching out to the 5-10% swing vote that will decide a future Border Poll on Irish unification,& it is coming.
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;