4th July 2022
Here is a tweet from the Chinese Embassy in Ireland:
"2 years ago we made a promise to the Northern Ireland Protocol.
We are determined to break it." pic.twitter.com/lw9GegBZ6r
— Chinese Embassy in Ireland (@ChinaEmbIreland) July 1, 2022
Well.
What did the government of the United Kingdom expect?
This is not to say there is equivalence between the two situations – and many may say that a false equivalence is being made.
And this is not to say that the government of China – with its often horrific record on human rights, including in respect of the Uyghurs – are somehow the ‘good guys’ for tweeting in this way.
Certainly not.
But.
Again: what did the government of the United Kingdom expect?
The government’s reckless determination to legislate so that it can unilaterally breach the Northern Irish protocol was always going to provoke responses like this.
A government that openly and expressly wants to breach international law – especially its own recently negotiated agreements – cannot credibly insist on other nations complying with their international agreements.
Similarly, the sustained attack on ‘European’ human rights law by this government also makes it difficult for the United Kingdom to insist on international human rights standards by others.
(This is a point I make today in more detail over at Al Jazeera – where I post regularly putting forward a liberal constitutionalist perspective.)
The United Kingdom now also appears to be considering breaking World Trade Organisation rules on steel subsidies.
The United Kingdom government is showing the same lack of respect to international rules-based regimes as it does to domestic rules.
But the more we denounce or deride or disregard international agreements and instruments, the more we are creating a needless moral hazard.
It is all so daft – and so dangerous.
*
In another universe, where the United Kingdom has also departed the European Union, a far more prudent government than the one we have currently would have spent the last few years building up its credibility as a party to international agreements and instruments.
After all, new international agreements are what the United Kingdom will need to rely on, now that it all alone on the world stage.
(Of course, such a prudent government may not have left the European Union in the first place.)
But instead of doing everything we can to build up our credibility as a potential partner to international agreements, we seem to have done everything we can to trash our international reputation as a serious party to international agreements.
And this was the worst possible time for us to convey such an insolent – almost infantile – attitude.
This is why we are now being trolled by the Chinese on social media.
And the United Kingdom government only has itself to blame.
***
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.
In a similar vein, I can hardly imagine that it does much to strengthen our hand in arguing against the death penalty for those British citizens arrested fighting in Ukraine, if we try to argue based on international conventions, while at the same time the government is desperately trying to break those conventions when they apply to, for example, refugees.
I am unsure what response the Labour Party has made to the Chinese Embassy in Ireland’s Tweet.
There is a view abroad that Sir Keir Starmer QC (I regard his knighthood and legal rank as electoral assets) replacing Boris Johnson would reset our international diplomatic and trade relations.
However, Peter Ungphakorn, formerly of the World Trade Organisation, Tweeted on 3rd July last year that Labour’s core economic policy of buy, make and sell more in Britain, if enacted in full might well bring into doubt the UK’s compliance with its commitments and obligations under the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement.
In one of the five options for Labour that Ungphakorn considered in the context of making buy, make and sell more in Britain a reality, he observed, “What the hell, let us just ignore our international commitments. Yet another unoriginal thought. In this case it would not distinguish Keir Starmer’s Labour Party from the present UK government of Boris Johnson.”
The policy itself amounts to little more than Rachel Reeves bullying the public sector, she plans to pass a Bill to that end, into sourcing more British goods and services than it currently does.
The Preston Model writ large.
Reeves is coy about her definition of British, but then so is the current Government, because it is also very much a policy sponsored by Michael Gove.
The policy is the cross cutting theme for Labour so, all other things being equal, we should hear more about it as the General Election gets closer, much to the concern I gather of many, particularly in British business.
Labour feels it will make them look more patriotic in the eyes of certain voters than does the Conservative Party.
Patriotism is once more the last refuge of the scoundrel, in this case in the context of international trade and relations.
The major concern – for me, at least – is that the Government seems to have a short-term view (about everything) which makes these decisions right in the short term.
(Also, they might have a short-term view because they expect to lose the next election and so won’t have to clear up the mess.)
When comedians play tragedy, we forget their comic past (if they are good) – politicians who act like comedians aren’t given the same leeway.
I’m reminded of the wishful thinking that preceded Trump’s inauguration when it was hoped the gravity of office would keep him grounded and his personal behaviour would be toned down.
We have a govt comprised of “vote leave” fantasists and Farage cast-offs; now China is reminding us who really won the referendum
It is shaming that any government should follow Millwall supporters:
“Everyone hates us, but we don’t care”
Look where Millwall is in the League.
you are so right, and tragically so, David. Despotic and corrupt regimes like those in Russia and China love to use “Tu Quoque” arguments (ie we can do what we want because that’s what YOU have done!) whenever they are accused of human rights or international law violations, whether this be the Ukraine invasion (where the Iraq invasion so often comes up as some sort of justification for Russia) or the breaching of the NIP
Spot on David. Tragic and depressing.
Depressing because, aside from a few local elections defeats, there’s no widespread uproar amongst the British electorate or media against the multiple Tory scams operated by this clique of duplicitous, political court jesters.
You write as though the conduct of this administration is somehow both new and remarkable.
It is neither.
Indeed, if you look back over previous administrations – all the way back to Thatcher – you will see that the history of UK politics is replete with scandals, with poor conduct or misconduct in office and with little or no repercussions for the worst offenders. Occupants of the Westminster Bubble operate as though they have some divine right to do as they wish. They do not.
The challenge we face, as citizens, is that none of these governments – Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May or Johnson – have chosen to enact laws or rules to curb their shameful and often-times illegal conduct. Challenge a sitting member of parliament with this irrefutable set of facts and what you will be told – as Liz Truss told reports when then story of Lockdown Parties broke – is that the way to replace Johnson as MP was through the next election. (Which of course is code for, “We hope this will all have blown over by then.”)
When it comes to checks and balances on power, there are many broad similarities between the UK and US systems of government. Their are differences, of course – the US have “co-equal branches of government” and so on. But in practice the approach is similar. Yet if you look at the conduct of former President Trump – countless breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution; breaches of the Federal Election Laws (buying the silence of a porn star and topless model); blatant solicitation of foreign interference in an election; interference in a federal investigation; witness tampering; dereliction of duty in the face of a public health crisis; the list goes on.
Trump moved on to his next act of malfeasance with such speed that neither the press nor the Democrats could keep up – and the Democrats are much more polished and competent than Starmer and Labour. Trump understood media management and the 24-hour news cycle. Any time a negative piece of news hit the press, he would flood the airwaves with misdirection.
In short, the US, with all their pride and occasional moral superiority about the value of their Constitution, soon discovered that all their “safeguards” were meaningless in the face of someone determined to bend the country and constitution to their will. But for a handful of people, the US today would be a dictatorship.
What UK citizens need to understand is that a similar, razor thin and illusory wall stands between the UK and the same fate. Worse, that inherently weak set of checks and balances on the exercise of power in the UK is compromised because unlike the US, when a party is in the majority, all power flows up to the PM and a small circle of cabinet members – all of whom are selected by said PM.
It is sheer good fortune that the UK has not experienced the same sorts of crises as the US went through in the last administration. However, the only reason it has avoided such fate is not because the UK’s system of government has safeguards in place, but because the UK hasn’t yet been subject to an administration led by a person with the personality and ambition of Donald Trump (“Absolute Immunity!”)
So far the only thing that is saving us from such fate is luck.
Not a good basis for stable, civilised government
I wish you weren’t right.
Yes, tragic, pathetic and depressing when I scan the learned list of topics in your blog + replies over the last days, weeks and months and the main news item of the day seems to be what this disgraceful head of government knew about his former deputy chief whip’s alleged misconduct and when.
Good point raised in this post, I’m glad DAG tackled the issue.
Johnson’s statement in the Commons today that ‘no one at the G7 or NATO meetings told him the proposed NIPB was illegal’ was beyond a sick joke. The clear implication of his answer to Joanna Cherry is that by Tory logic all those leaders considered it legal and that’s his argument.
The Chinese approach to political time is worth noting: If Jiang Zemin makes a promise that Hu Jintao reinterprets and Xi Jinping ignores, who (scuse pun) can be said to have been dishonest?
It isn’t self interested dishonesty that wise old China sneers at; it’s the childish impatience that prevents the West from doing it as a cooperative team sport. Britain, an undoubted past master at this sort of long game, has fallen far and hard in the eyes of the East. Red faced indignant finger pointing and whataboutery never got anyone more than polite chuckles, more tea and the offer of a looking glass in China.
God save the UK, Xi is most definitely amused.