Uncategorized

by

Boris Johnson admits quick US trade deal will be a challenge | Financial Times

Boris Johnson on Sunday played down expectations of concluding a quick UK-US trade deal after his first meeting as British prime minister with Donald Trump, saying any agreement would require America to make compromises.

Although Mr Johnson said he would “love” to agree a deal “within a year”, he acknowledged there would be significant challenges to overcome if an agreement was going to be finalised rapidly after Britain leaves the EU.“I don’t think people realise quite how protectionist sometimes the US market can be, Mr Johnson told ITV after he held a breakfast meeting with Mr Trump at the G7 summit in Biarritz.

Source: Boris Johnson admits quick US trade deal will be a challenge | Financial Times

 

Northern Comment…

In very short order we have gone from PM Johnson thinking that no deal was “a million to one chance” to “touch and go”. The swift American trade deal has not survived first contact with the American President. The Prime Minister doesn’t, “… think people realise quite how protectionist sometimes the US market can be, …”   I think for “some people” we can safely replace Boris Johnson. To whom the constraints of power have come as a complete surprise. His model of negotiation is the traditional English approach to foreign languages. All he need do is speak louder and slower and they will understand what we need them to do. Any failure to understand what they have to do is down to European obduracy and unreasonableness.

Any challenge to his negotiation style is treason. Expect much more about collaborators, traitors and an attempt to pin the fiasco of Brexit on anyone other than himself and his pals in the European Research Group, the British equivalent of the Tea Party.

“Can do” is not a strategy. In Mr Johnson’s case it is not even a description. The real tragedy of the coming political dog fight is that it will undermine democracy in the eyes of those who are likely to lose out most from any form of Brexit. I struggle to imagine what special place in hell ought to exist for those politicians who know what a mess they are creating but plough on regardless.

 

by

“Who do you think you are kidding Mr Johnson”

Once again Great Britain is threatened from across the Channel. After a protracted period of negotiation Prime Minister Theresa Chamberlain returned to the Commons with a piece of paper in her hand. Unfortunately she did not appreciate that the perfidious failure of the Europeans to accept our desire to leave and remain within the European Union would not satisfy the patriotic fervour of her colleagues who promptly shot her.

Things looked grim for Blighty but cometh the hour cometh… a new team to defend our shores. “Haves Army” a group of individuals led by those who had overcome the challenges and travails faced by their fellow citizens by applying their entrepreneurial  skills to carefully choosing their parents. Leading them, Boris Mainwaring, a man known for his serious attention to detail, integrity and probity but most of all his sophisticated negotiation skills.

Immediately the Captain eschewed  the defeatist thinking of the collaborators and adopted the “can do” attitude which had been lost with Empire. His central negotiating gambit was to play the Blazing Saddles opening. Who can forget the masterful strategy of the new black sheriff as he rode into town. The excited anticipation of the white towns-folk waiting to greet him turning first to disbelief, then anger, then threat.

Surrounded by a mob with pistols drawn the new sheriff calls their bluff. He draws his gun and points it at his own head. “Back off or the black guy gets it.” he calls. The crowd gasp. One of the townsfolk shouts “Put your guns down. He ain’t bluffing.” The crowd part as the sheriff retreats to the safety of his office, all the while pointing the gun at his head. One of the towns women-folk calls plaintively, “Is no one going to save that poor man?” The black sheriff/hostage enters his office and the crowd breaks up not even aware of what has just happened to them.

So Captain Boris tells those pesky Europeans to back-stop off or there will be no deal. To convince them he draws on his trusted ally, Lance Corporal Gove, tasking him to make sure there is plenty of ammunition for the suicide threat. Something Corporal Gove doesn’t need to be asked twice. Off he goes around the country to ports and industries repeating the carefully thought through no deal strategy of “Don’t panic! Don’t panic!”

Keeping his head down with self-deprecating promotion, Private Rees-Walker, promotes a strategy for the nation that will take it forward to the 1850’s when serious wealth could be generated and the lower orders knew their place.

What could go wrong? Although I think I do hear sotto voce from somewhere in the political ether the pithy statement of coherent opposition “We’re doomed, we’re all doomed!”

 

by

Killing Democracy From Within

In their book, “How Democracies Die”, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Zitblatt draw on 15 years research and teaching together about how democracies fail. They distinguish between circumstances where agents external to the domestic political system use force to overthrow elected governments, Allende’s Chile being a classic example of this.

A more insidious, but no less effective and dangerous, mechanism they identify is when a democracy is destroyed from within. Destroyed by leaders who have come to power through the very democratic process which they ultimately debase and destroy. A variety of examples are drawn upon to illustrate their case. In some instances it was clear from early on the individual concerned had no respect for, or interest in, democracy, others drifted to a more authoritarian position in a tit for tat escalation of power plays with opposition parties.

Based on their research they identify four key indicators of authoritarian behaviour. First, a rejection of, or weak commitment to, the democratic rules of the game. An example might be a candidate saying they may not accept the outcome of the election if they don’t win. Second, a denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, for example questioning whether they were legally entitled to hold office. Third, the toleration or encouragement of violence. Finally, readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including the media.

Interestingly, Levitsky and Zitblatt see political parties as having a key role to play as gatekeepers for democracies. Ensuring only those committed to the rules of the game get to play. Or at least exercising appropriate control when errant leaders go off-piste.

Whilst one should never fail to hold to personal account leaders who undermine democracy there is real force in the wider level of responsibility amongst political parties to shore up democratic values and call out transgressors. It is particularly incumbent on a problematic leaders’ own party to accept this responsibility, not least as it has the greatest power to enforce acceptable standards of behaviour.

The Republican Party in the United States will, in the fullness of time, be seen to have been derelict in their duty to democracy from its actions to date in relation to their President. They have a President who, even given the leeway appropriate to an incumbent and a member of their Party, has demonstrated time and again a disdain for democratic conventions and an ignorance of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

There are some things which should override partisan loyalty and access to Presidential power. Democracy needs to be cultivated and supported if the concentration of power and the inevitable abuse that accompanies this is to be avoided.

No one should underestimate the scale of the threat that President Trump represents. Every congressman and senator in the US needs to look to their conscience and answer whether President Trump represents the values they want to shape the country their children live in.

“How Democracies Die” does not see President Trump as the single aberrant cause of the current dysfunctional politics in the States.  They believe the “process of norm erosion started decades ago…” A key personality they identify is Newt Gingrich and his election in 1978. This turning point ushered in a period when the language of politics was increasingly coarsened. Gingrich took combative politics to a new level, questioning the patriotism of Democrats, comparing them to Mussolini and accusing them of trying to destroy the country. Initial concern amongst traditional Republicans was overcome and bipartisan compromise and progress gave way to legislative deadlock and government shutdowns.

By the time President Obama was elected in 2008 many of the conventions and norms essential to the effective running of governments had been abandoned. Three norm breaches pointed to by Levitsky and Zitblatt show how far apart the sides had become. Firstly, the refusal by the Republicans, propelled by the Tea Party, to raise the Federal debt limit. In passing, it is something of a mystery what has happened to the enormous Republican concern with the Federal debt now that President Trump has added a significant amount to it with tax cuts.

Secondly, in March 2015 forty six Republican Senators wrote an open letter to Iran’s leaders claiming President Obama had no authority to negotiate a deal over Iran’s nuclear programme. Seeking to undermine the authority of a sitting president was previously unthinkable.

But possibly the most outrageous and significant in the long term was the blocking of President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme  Court in 2016. In 150 years from 1866 to 2016 the Senate has always accepted the right of the sitting President to fill a Supreme Court seat. The Republicans did not just refuse the proposed candidate of President Obama they said they would not consider any nominee from him in his last year in office.

When politicians turn democracy into a zero sum power game they play with fire. They transform opponents into enemies and divide communities. In a context of massive and growing inequality, continuing stagnation of wage levels, the automation of more and more jobs, and the rising impact of climate change this has the potential to be cataclysmic.

Changes over the past 40 years have created an environment where someone like Donald Trump can get elected to the Presidency of the United States and be supported by the vast majority of Republican senators and congressmen. It would be wrong however to see President Trump as simply another step along a path of the debasement of political currency. He is a step change in the degradation of the body politic. The need for him to be rejected by voters in the United States is vital. Democrats must ensure they do not allow him to divide them. If they do the very term United States may be in danger and democracy may indeed die.

by

Trumps Presidential State Visit

That Trump came on a state visit is not the problem. The problem is he was invited.

Some have argued it is only right he should be invited given the importance of the “special relationship” between the US and the UK. It is interesting, however, this relationship did not need such a visit during the 1950’s, 60′, 70′, 80’s, or 90’s. The first state visit of an American President under Queen Elizabeth II was President GW Bush in 2003. The only other was President Obama in 2011.

Those arguing against the visit point to both President Trump’s personal characteristics and his political actions. An inveterate liar, narcissist, misogynist, racist, bombast and bully… I could go on. These may be true, however there are a number of state visitors over the years who would not pass the smell test on at least some of these criteria, and it is a moot point about which is worse, someone who is not even aware of his awfulness as against someone who dissembles.

The second argument is that Trump is, at heart, an enemy of democracy. His attacks on the judiciary via tweets about judges who don’t do as he thinks they should and the blatant appointment of people he thinks more biddable; attacks on a free media; disregard for the constitutional principle of the separation of powers; failure to distinguish his personal interests from those of the office he holds. Another strong set of arguments but again the Queen has held banquets with many whose interest in democracy has been at best passing or indeed openly hostile.

Whilst it is very uncomfortable to sup with the devil you can understand why the UK government attempts to secure positive relationships with countries to further its economic and geo-political interests however odious the regime may be.

The key economic interest put forward as the reason for the current visit is a possible trade deal with the US. One can see that post Brexit such a deal would be an urgent priority. President Trump has responded to this, talking of what a fantastic deal that could be done once we throw off the “shackles” of the EU.

It was Lord Palmerston who set out the real politic of diplomatic guidelines, “We have no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” So we often have to treat with those we privately despise, and that includes using the soft power of pomp and royal access. So was Mrs May right to invite President Trump?

The answer is no. Not because of any liberal concern for his personal or political shortcomings. President Trump is unique.

Whatever the faults of the previous 110 heads of state they could be expected to act rationally even if that rationality was not in our interests. You could make sense of where they were coming from and going to, even if you did not like it. Further, they at least understood rational argument or had sufficient self awareness to listen to their advisors.

President Trump is special. All of his rationality is ex post facto. There is no point in trying to get close to him and secure a commitment. His commitments run nowhere near the length of his tie. There are a swath of staff in the White House whose job it is to make sense of ill informed tweets on major policy issues. In the middle of NAFTA trade negotiations President Trump, a la Homer Simpson, wakes up and tweets that he will be imposing tariffs on Mexican imports. Bemused advisors and spokes people try, with ever less success, to present this as part of a strategy of the President or as part of his instinctive deal making style. 

In two and a half years President Trump has normalised venal lunacy. There are a lot of very clever people trying to make what he does look like it is a radical shake up of a dated global order. Some have their own agenda and Trump is a useful battering ram for their alt right objectives. Some are no doubt patriotic Americans trying to limit the damage President Trump does to the nation’s reputation.

Mrs May’s proposal to the Queen was certainly embarrassing, but its ultimate sin is it was pointless. The only calculation President Trump will be making when the wheels of Air Force One leave the ground will be the impact pictures of him with the Queen will have on the 2020 election. Any thought of a trade deal will only be in the context of how such a prize may be used to expedite Brexit.

It is vital we do not lose sight of the base venality of the man. On his way back to the States he called off in Ireland for a meeting with the Taioseach, Leo Varadkar. The Irish government turned down the President’s proposal to meet at one of his golf complexes in Ireland! At the meeting in the VIP lounge at Shannon the President demonstrated his trademark depth of understanding and deft diplomatic sensitivity about borders and walls! Whilst you cannot help laughing at him this should not dilute a recognition of the danger he poses to democracy both in the States and around the world.

Mrs May’s invitation would have been valuable had it genuinely stood a chance of promoting the interests of the UK. It never did. It has only served to burnish the image of President Trump with his base and feed his voracious, narcissistic, self indulgence. The UK’s interests are best served by the departure of President Trump from the office he holds. Whilst the UK government should do nothing to actively promote this it is the hight of stupidity to do anything that might delay that happening.