Why is Johnson's speech at the Munich conference hailed in some quarters, even by some journalists that should know better, as "a major policy speech" with "substance"? I went to read it expecting for once to be pleasantly surprised. Alas! Thread

It is full of the usual misplaced optimism not backed by any serious analysis, jingoism & digs at other EU leaders with transparent, nearly servile efforts to regain favour with the new US administration. A few examples:
The speech starts with the trademark rethorical device beloved of the UK right (whether to attack "woke' culture or pro-EU sentiments): A wildly exaggerated overblown simplistic statement that you then go on to "disprove"
So a dig aimed at Macron for saying NATO needs to adapt to changing circumstances and flattery towards America : "As you’ve seen and heard earlier, America is unreservedly back as leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing."
Then the self- agrandissements : notice all the "I" & "Global Britain"
Then (irony klaxon), the PM who by mysterious means ensured exclusivity of supply for vaccines manufactured on its territory to the clear detriment of its nearest "friends" (having received vaccines from EU factories when its supply was short) exalts the "flames of cooperation "
👇says the man who pulled his country out of Europe security institutions to the horror of his immediate predecessor making it more exposed to terrorist threat, the same man who casually disregarded (even recently poured oil over) the simmering tensions in Northern Ireland.
Then 👇 pathetic boast: I have got a big one too (hey, Joe, remember all those big defense procurement contracts)
Followed by another Brexit boast & a dig at the (naturally slower more cumbersome) EU. But ask yourself: which sanctions matter more to Putin? EU's or UK's?And which UK party wanted to pull out of the Human Right Convention & threatens to "rewrite" the Human Rights Act?
Then new dig at the EU & pat on Biden's back: this time about the EU/China investment Agreement which 1) merely ensures the same competitive advantages to EU cnies as to US ones 2) includes - contrary to US's arrangements- some leverage due to China's committments slave labour
Britain always had "sovereignty" over its defense policy. The "Transatlantic Quad" was operational & has been much weakened by Brexit. As for the "new resolve" of our European "friends", it has nothing to do with what Britain does or does not do.
Fawning to the point of being obsequious & yet another dig at the EU. Completely ignore the question mark on the health of US democracy raised by recent events.
And finally a clichés ridden conclusion, high on hopes, light on facts
Flattery to the US, sly attacks on the EU (particularly France, our major European defense partner which is at striking odds odds with the supposed aim of the speech ), trademark boosterism, overblown statements on Britain's role, overuse of the word "Britain"
(is NI to be dumped?) , if this is a "great speech" of "substance", what is a poor Johnson's speech? The major achievement is that the sentences hang together & it was blissfully short.

More from Government

Long thread: Because I couldn’t find anything comprehensive, I’m just going to post everything I’ve seen in the news/Twitter about Trump’s activities related to the Jan 6th insurrection. I think the timing & context of his actions/inactions will matter a lot for a senate trial.

12/12: The earlier DC protest over the electoral college vote during clearly inspired Jan 6th. On Dec 12th, he tweeted: “Wow! Thousands of people forming in Washington (D.C.) for Stop the Steal. Didn’t know about this, but I’ll be seeing them! #MAGA.”


12/19: Trump announces the Jan. 6th event by tweeting, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Immediately, insurrectionists begin to discuss the “Wild Protest.” Just 2 days later, this UK political analyst predicts the violence


12/26-27: Trump announces his participation on Twitter. On Dec. 29, the FBI sends out a nationwide bulletin warning legislatures about attacks https://t.co/Lgl4yk5aO1


1/1: Trump tweets the time of his protest. Then he retweets “The calvary is coming” on Jan. 6!” Sounds like a war? About this time, the FBI begins visiting right wing extremists to tell them not to go--does the FBI tell the president? https://t.co/3OxnB2AHdr

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.