16th June 2022
Lord Geidt is an unlikely man of steel.
Yet it appears that steel was the reason for his resignation.
And so, as a discreet but embarrassed courtier, he has chosen to exit via the ‘trade’ route.
(Photo by Chance Agrella from Freerange Stock – donation made.)
*
See this outstanding and informative thread from the estimable trade expert Sam Lowe for the practical background to this matter:
So last year the independent Trade Remedies Authority recommended that the UK remove a number of safeguard tariffs on Chinese steel.
— Sam Lowe (@SamuelMarcLowe) June 16, 2022
The tariffs were extended for a year … until the end of this month.
At which point I now assume the UK will continue to apply the tariffs on Chinese steel (presumably again agains the recommendation of the TRA), despite not having the legal justification to do so.
— Sam Lowe (@SamuelMarcLowe) June 16, 2022
*
But what can we make of the resignation letter and the reply?
NEW: Lord Geidt's resignation letter pic.twitter.com/YPe3VIN7sX
— Mikey Smith (@mikeysmith) June 16, 2022
And the PM's reply pic.twitter.com/6a3aV38g9q
— Mikey Smith (@mikeysmith) June 16, 2022
*
Lord Geidt comes from a diplomatic background.
And diplomats, like lawyers, are wordsmiths.
(It is just that their wordsmithery is often about imprecision and ambiguity, in contrast to the lawyerly lust for precision and clarity.)
He will have chosen his words and formulations carefully.
So let us look at the operative paragraph:
An “impossible and odious position” is quite a striking thing to say.
(Though “deliberate and purposeful” seems a tautology.)
The Prime Minister’s letter sets out more about the request for advice:
*
There is a lot here that does not make immediate sense.
Lord Geidt for all his many merits is not a lawyer, still less a trade lawyer.
There would be no obvious reason for “tasking” him for a view on something to do with the legality of tariffs.
The question must have come before him another way.
Some are speculating that it may be because of party donations, but this appears to be being denied (though the denial is in a curious form):
Number 10 is denying that donations from steel tycoons were ever raised by Geidt
— Jim Pickard 🐋 (@PickardJE) June 16, 2022
My current suspicion is that there may have been a request for a ministerial direction to do something with which an official did not feel comfortable, which then somehow got referred to Lord Geidt.
Who knows.
But connecting the [X] of a steel tariffs issue to the [Y] of an ethics adviser resigning is not easy.
And this is the case even if Lord Geidt simply used this issue as a pretext to resign.
There is something missing here.
*
But.
What is not missing here, however, is that this incident shows that our current Prime Minister is at best indifferent to two rules-based regimes.
The first is the Ministerial Code – which, as this blog has previously averred, is a constitutional nonsense, as it offers no real check or balance whatsoever to any Prime Minister.
The second is the rules-based system of the World Trade Organisation.
You may recall government-supporters during Brexit clamouring for the United Kingdom to trade on ‘WTO terms’.
It often seemed they did not know what that actually meant, and it was said because it sounded good.
Well.
It seems that the government of the United Kingdom is as contemptuous of this type of international law as it is of others.
This very week we have seen the government of the United Kingdom seek to break international law with the Northern Irish Protocol Bill and make aggressive noises about compliance with the orders of the European Court of Human Rights.
The rules of the World Trade Organisation are now the third international law regime the government of the United Kingdom want to be free from this week – and it is still only Thursday lunchtime.
*
At the heart of this government is a sense of lawlessness – that in area after area there is the view that rules do not and should not apply.
The resignation of Lord Geidt seems to be a double-whammy of two such areas – the Ministerial Code and WTO rules.
But it could have been compliance with the orders of the European Court of Human Rights, or compliance with the Northern Irish Protocol, or compliance with Covid regulations, and so on.
And so on.
Perhaps we will find out more about the circumstances of this particular resignation.
But we already know from previous resignations that much of what has happened is already all too clear.
I have updated and added to my thread on resignation letters by the Prime Minister's advisers citing legal and ethical failings on part the PM and his Government. https://t.co/6nINVJIXX2
— Tom Hickman (@TomRHickman) June 16, 2022
**
Thank you for reading – posts like this take time and opportunity cost, so please support this free-to-read independent source of commentary.
For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
“At the heart of this government is a sense of lawlessness – that in area after area there is the view that rules do not and should not apply.”
Indeed. I am now 69 years of age, and this is unprecedented in my lifetime, at least. Past scandals; yes of course, but these have almost always led to resignations. The lawlessness in this government is systemic, brazen and unapologetic, in my opinion. And, sadly, without effective sanction or remedy, it seems.
Well, yes. The only effective remedy I can see is the ballot box.
I hope. My concerns are that far too many people still seem beguiled by the divisive culture wars nonsense, and/or unenthused by the alternative. Labour has work to do.
The rot starts at the top, and it is not a new thing. I can do no better than quote his housemaster and classics teacher at Eton, Martin Hammond, who wrote in April 1982, fully 40 years ago:
“Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility … I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else.”
Put simply, he does not think rules apply to him: he can do whatever he wants, and expects to get away with it. He does not acknowledge that he has done anything wrong, and would gladly do it all again.
This attitude has worked beautifully for him for the last 40 years, and got him elected to the highest office in the land. The british public have no one but themselves to blame.
To be fair, he’s not the only person to have received a scathing report from Martin Hammond – who was an excellent Ancient Greek teacher. I seem to remember receiving some strident feedback myself.
But this one has aged particularly well.
I’ve heard this quote many times but didn’t realise that this person taught him classics, i.e. the subject he studied at university. Imagine getting this report and thinking, “yes that’s the subject I should spend the next three years studying.” Another telling sign of his character.
Hammond was percipient. His last report, in January 1983, after Johnson had won a place at Balliol, expressed concern that Johnson “may take his easy-going ways with him to Balliol and add to the statistics of Etonians who do little work at Oxbridge.”
It was almost inevitable that Johnson would rely on his wits rather than academic study – one of his Oxford tutors described him as “probably the worst scholar Eton ever sent us – a buffoon and an idler” – so Johnson ended up with a 2:1 rather than the First he wanted.
To quote your recent post: Dominic Raab says “fiddling with the rules when you don’t like the result is a bad look”….
Didn’t take too long for that one to become a “bottom biter”, did it!
For a man with Geidt’s background, to have taken on the job, with the knowledge of his predecessor’s resignation, was a brave if foolhardy decision. I continually fail to understand how these advisors, from Cummings to Geidt can think they can change/control the Johnsonian narrative. ‘Another one bites the dust’
I believe that Cummings thought that he was the Machiavelli in that relationship and that Johnson was his tool with which to smash the the country and remake it from it’s rubble.
I wonder whether the missing link was an off-the-cuff comment which nevertheless expressed deliberation and purpose, along the lines of “Let the bodies pile high”.
Not only are they reluctant to be constrained by laws, they are also so shameless they attempt to justify breaking laws (NI protocol) on ground of protecting law (GFA)
Whatever the real reason for Geidt’s resignation, (and I prefer that he read John Craces’ excoriating report in the Guardian) the linkage between steel and the resignation is one of Downing’s Street’s making. Johnson’s reply to Geidt’s resignation letter states: “You say that you were put in an impossible position regarding my seeking your advice on potential future decisions related to the Trades Remedies Authority.”
Geidt’s resignation letter makes no reference to the TRA. He does say: “… I was tasked to offer a view about a Government intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position.” This “intention” could have been almost anything Johnson has considered each and every day since he arrived at Number 10 or indeed his entire life.
There follows a sentence in Johnson’s letter with ambiguous grammar and use of tense which might suggest that the advice had not actually yet been sought, let alone given: “My intention was to seek your advice on the national interest in protecting a crucial industry…”
Apparently Downing Street would not confirm that the resignation was over the TRA. I suspect the TRA is a smokescreen for a much more egregious breach of the Ministerial Code being proposed. Is Geidt going to bite back with a letter of clarification? Highly unlikely. It behoves the press to press further this “muddying pools, poisoning wells” as le Carré’s Alleline puts it so eloquently.
I agree – no mention of steel or trade in Geidt’s letter. The PM introduces it, knowing Geidt won’t come back. Convenient as it joins the Labour Party position on steel as Thomas Symonds found on PM today. Maybe we have to wait for Geidt’s memoirs or something juicier?
Absolutely. I haven’t been able to find any source for the assertion that the resignation relates to steel tarrifs other than from Johnson’s letter or from parties who are actively committed to defending the PM. If any other evidence exists, then it is the job of investigative journalism to find that evidence. Given the track record of the PM as a potential speaker of truth, I have not seen any reason (to date) to believe this story. It’s depressing that the ‘main stream media’ and the Labour party seem to have accepted this spin without careful fact checking.
Largely superfluous – sorry – but perhaps for context. Over the last few years, China has been ‘dumping’ vast quantities of steel in Europe at prices that have serious undercut anything that the EU could match, given the significant delta in labour and energy costs.
The net effect – and the deliberate intent from the outset – was to decimate the remaining EU steel production capability. Now, you could argue that this was purely economic common sense in the simplest possible way – China was manufacturing excess steel (but why?) and sought to gain some form of income from it (by selling it cheap overseas).
Or you could say that it was a form of economic warfare – a deliberate attempt to undercut European Steel production until the local manufacturing capability was decimated, then put prices back up and reap good profits from having the EU as a captive market for Chinese exports.
Or you could be even more paranoid and point out that as well as the obvious industrial applications like white goods and cars – which are *huge* markets, China sought to influence all the things that depend on steel – ship building, construction, even military procurement.
Whatever your views on the position of the “Paranoia Pendulum”, China’s concerted effort to undermine British/EU Steel capacity should be a cause for concern.
Just saying.
Am I the only one who finds ‘just saying’ very irksome?
No.
What I don’t understand is why he is resigning at the point when he has been asked to advise on a certain matter (whatever it is). Why can he not advise in good faith on that matter and then resign if and when his advice is ignored? Why does the question itself put him in an impossible position. He said something similar before about the ‘party-fine-lie’ thing and I didnt understand it then either. I must be missing something, but what is the point of an adviser when he resigns whenever he has to give unwelcome advice?
Really excellent question.
My answer is a guess.
Because he doesn’t trust the PM to faithfully represent any advice he may give. For example:-
PM to Geist: “Are you OK with me driving my car at 120mph on the M1 on account of me being the PM?”
Lord Geist to PM: “Absolutely not! That would be illegal!”
PM, on being stopped by a motorway patrol on the M1: “But officer, I consulted extensively with Lord Geidt and his advice formed the basis of my approach to this journey…”
The PM would not have lied – exactly. But he would have taken the fact that Lord Geidt gave any sort of reply and spun it to his advantage. By refusing to be drawn in to responding, Lord Geidt deprived the PM of the ability to spin.
Smart man.
I think it’s cowardly of him.
If Johnson disingenuously gave out that he was following the advice given by Geidt when he wasn’t, then that would be the time for Geidt to resign and tell the truth to the world and shame the devil.
I don’t think people would believe Johnson.
Geidt seems to me to want money for old rope.
Taking the PM’s letter to Lord Geidt at face value, I am not even sure Lord Geidt was being asked to opine on the legality of the tariffs. It looks as if he was only being asked to advise whether a potential ministerial decision to continue import tariffs on Chinese steel would breach the Ministerial Code, on the assumption that continuing such tariffs would be lawful, as a matter of English law (“in line with our domestic law”), but, potentially, unlawful under International law (i.e. “might be seen to conflict with our obligations under WTO”).
It is a singularly odd question to ask Lord Geidt given that, on a case far clearer on its facts, the Internal Market Bill, the Cabinet Secretary ruled in September 2020, that such actions (which are domestically lawful but internationally unlawful) do not breach either the Civil Service or Ministerial Code. It looks quite like just spoiling for a fight with his adviser.
More worrisome, given, as you point out, the Government seems fatally addicted to breaking international law, is that it gives the appearance of reducing the issue of international law breaking to the ethics of the relevant minister involved.
That is to spectacularly miss the point; i.e. why international rule abiding matters. Primarily, the Government shouldn’t take actions which are domestically lawful but internationally unlawful because they invite retaliation and diminish the UK’s international reputation. That is not personal ethics but state politics.
Framing the question as the Prime Minister did, he would have ended up no better advised on the law or politics but has created a false picture of an ethics establishment trying to prevent the Government from protecting the steel industry. All grist to the mill of this Government’s battle to wrest control of Britain from its constitution, and all the more unedifying for that.
If breaking international (non-domestic) law is no longer considered a breach of the ministerial code, ministers are free to ignore any treaty obligations they don’t like.
This might help a prime minister needing support from his colleagues, but will not help the country’s reputation.
“It is a singularly odd question to ask Lord Geidt given that, on a case far clearer on its facts, the Internal Market Bill, the Cabinet Secretary ruled in September 2020, that such actions (which are domestically lawful but internationally unlawful) do not breach either the Civil Service or Ministerial Code. It looks quite like just spoiling for a fight with his adviser.”
Intriguing.
While I would be the first to concede that the PM doesn’t seem particularly Machiavellian in nature, that doesn’t mean he lacks method, motive or opportunity.
Is it possible that Lord Geidt might in some other way have irritated the PM to the point that a decision was made to “shame him out of office” and thereby replace him with someone a little more… pliable?
Consider the optics. Had the PM dismissed Lord Geidt (and here I assume in ignorance that he has the authority to do so), particularly in the midst of the scandals currently swirling around No. 10, it would have the appearance of vindictiveness.
But take this route, make the role so unpleasant as to force Lord Geidt to resign, gives the PM the opportunity to knife him in the back even while picking a more obsequious replacement.
I wouldn’t put it past him.
Credible. Trumpian if so. Self before community. Triumph of the individual. Free the rentiers. Harness the state as an asset to be milked. They will have us leave The West. Or kill it.
Now that sounds like a smart tactical move that deliberately puts Geidt in an odious and impossible position, causes him to resign (he was going to resign about something soon), but to resign around an issue about which No 10 can then sew confusion. They are not stupid – but they are mendacious.
not a great student of our steel industry but wasn’t it taken over by an indian billionaire ? and isn’t our esteemed chancellor of the exchequer and rival to boris johnoskn related by marriage to another Indian Billionaire perhaps a rival Indian Billionaire?
Either way there is something quite spicy in the vagueness of the letters and the willingness of the usual suspects in Fleet st to pounce on it as todays trolling point
‘But it could have been compliance with the orders of the European Court of Human Rights, or compliance with the Northern Irish Protocol….’. Might it have been a (‘last straw’) reaction to be asked opportunistically for a view on a technical (‘specific and limited’) derogation while his view was *not* sought on the gross defiance of ethics and international law in the cases of the Rwanda deportations and NIP?
In this age of Twitter and fast-moving electronic communication, it’s incredibly hard to keep secrets that are known by a large number of people.
No doubt the truth will be revealed. But like DAG and the other commentators above I seriously doubt the story currently being circulated by Number 10.
There is a certain irony if it turns out the Prime Minister was lying over the reason his ethics advisor resigned!
Irony? it’s almost a certainty.
Ha, Ha, very good !
May I offer this analysis:
1. Lord Geidt was told that the TRA had produced a document that said unambiguously that the continuation/imposition of tariffs (on steel as it happens) was contrary to the rules of the WTO.
2. Lord Geidt was told that there were economic reasons for continuing/imposing such tariffs and that adherence to WTO rules would damage the economy. Further Lord Geidt understood from what he had been told that in the view of Ministers/the Prime Minister the economic considerations trumped the rules. (The PM’s response to the resignation letter suggests that the PM had only asked for ADVICE as to whether the economic considerations did trump the rules but (1) if Johnson were telling the truth it would be out of character and (2) Johnson (witness CBI Peppa Pig speech) can be less than coherent)
3. Note that it is not necessary to have any knowledge of steel or tariffs to address the ethical issue – because that is whether or not the principle “Pacta sunt servanda” is one that should command our respect.
4. Note that there is authority that the requirement to act lawfully in the ministerial code is not limited to domestic law but includes international law. So from a positive law (as opposed to ethical) perspective the ministerial code sets out an obligation to obey an international legal agreement (e.g. the rules of the WTO). That the Code is farcical in its enforcement arrangements is immaterial to this point.
5. Lord Geidt seems to have a broadly Aristotelian approach to ethics (which would draw a meaningful distinction between “purposeful” and “deliberate” that you say is not made in English law.) If so he would, on the facts presented and without any need to know anything about trade, be bound to conclude that he was being asked to advise on whether it was permissible to break the principle “pacta sunt servanda” and whether imposing/continuing these tariffs broke the ministerial code. And the answers would be so obvious that Lord Geidt could only conclude the person putting these questions was in an important way ethically defective.
6. The TRA has stated that it made no recommendation – only presented a set of findings. In a tweet I have pointed out that this distinction rests on an interpretation of David Hume’s comment on the difficulty of moving from a set of statements with “is” as the main verb to a statement with “ought” that is “no ‘ought’ from an ‘is'”. This interpretation has been challenged and even were it to be upheld in this case it (i.e. because the TRA only provided findings with “is” and “are” and no “ought” TRA’s findings did not imply which decision/choice should be made) this does not alter the fact that the PM seemed to be questioning the validity of the principle pacta sunt servanda.
7. Lord Geidt’s position seems to me to need no further explanation than attributing to him a belief that pacta sunt servanda is an ethical principle which is also incorporated in the ministerial code
I do like this analysis. Imagine if he was asked whether a breach of the Code was excusable where the breaching act was in the national interest (see the PM’s letter for some hint of that). Imagine he conceded that point on an obscure point relating to steel tariffs. Having established that principle, imagine if a PM wished to extend it to something less obscure, the NI Protocol perhaps. And who would be determining what was in the national interest? We are all chasing shadows here a little but this seems plausible to me: Guidt felt used, perhaps.
Excellent point – well made.
If there was a legal issue about compliance with the WTO tariff regime then there are plenty of qualified lawyers who can consider the point. Failing this the Government can always rely on the Attorney General to cobble some piece of nonsense together to create a legal fig leaf.
If it was an ethical issue relating to the ministerial code it is hard to see why Lord Geidt would need to be involved unless, for example, ministers were planning on lying about an aspect of the policy to Parliament, or that there was some conflict of interest that again ministers planned in advance to conceal. All we really know is that he was asked about deliberate plans to break the ministerial code in advance of the actual event. Just how bad was this proposed breach that someone who had managed to put up with some pretty glaring breaches recently felt he had to resign?
“All we really know is that he was asked about deliberate plans to break the ministerial code in advance of the actual event.”
Louis Armstrong was once asked by an interviewer, “How would you define ‘jazz’? ” He replied, “Man, if you need to ask, you’ll NEVER know!”
What I find most interesting about this affair is why Geidt chose to resign over such an odd issue, and one on which Conservative politicians and their supporters in the right wing press feel confident in defending Johnson (ie a PM determined to protect British jobs.)
Geidt might have resigned over so many issues – wallpaper, parties, Johnson’s partial (in both senses of the word) implementation of Evans’s report.
While I’m not normally a believer in conspiracy theories it’s hard not to think that Geidt wanted to minimise the damage to Johnson of his departure.
That is also a believable explanation. Geidt is not exactly an ‘anti-establishment’ figure, and perhaps was trying to minimise ‘rocking the boat’.
Exactly!
Is it not worth noting that out of the four main paragraphs of Lord Geidt’s letter, only the last concerns why he is resigning? The other three are all about his appearance before the Select Committee, Johnson’s inadequate responses etc. Perhaps that means that here (Johnson’s ongoing disregard for any standards in public life) lies the real reason for Geidt resigning with the particular issue around tariffs just being the straw which broke the camel’s back?