Our Lib Dem Peer and regular LDV contributor William Wallace is an Emeritus Professor in International Relations. He is more qualified than most people to comment on foreign policy. In the Lords debate on the EU Withdrawal on Monday, he was incredibly critical about the Foreign Secretary – and that was before Boris’s bizarre comparison of the congestion charge boundary to the Irish border after Brexit.
ICYMI Lib Dem peer William Wallace lays into the Foreign Secretary, calling him “a real embarrassment” as Boris watches from the wings pic.twitter.com/MWdMBJoarj
— Lib Dem Lords (@LibDemLords) February 27, 2018
Here’s the whole of that speech:
It is clear that we will have to return to this at the next stage if the Government do not provide any more detail. First, on the role of the Lords in considering Bills such as this, the noble Baroness said—as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said on a couple of occasions—that this is a largely mechanical Bill. Well, it is a mechanical Bill that gives very wide discretion to the Government to design our future relationship with our most important security, political and economic partners. So a House that concerns itself not with whether the principle of the Bill is correct but with the detail is entirely in accord with its role to ask for detail on what that discretion will be used for. It would be easier to accept that this is a mechanical Bill and not to raise these difficult questions one after another if we had some confidence that the Government actually know what they want in these areas. Part of our problem is that many of us have no such confidence. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary has a clue about what he wants by way of a future relationship with Europe: I doubt whether he has really thought about it for more than three or four minutes. He is too busy thinking about the next anecdote he is going to tell or the next joke he is going to make. His speech last week was a disgrace for a Foreign Secretary: the Prime Minister’s was of an entirely different quality. For a Conservative Party that has always prided itself on its commitment to a strong foreign policy, it must be a real embarrassment that we still have someone in place who is incapable of giving a serious speech on foreign policy. So this House is fulfilling its proper role in asking for detail on the implications of the Bill.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Steve Winwood on working with Viv Stanshall
Firebird
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A quiet conference
From Creeting St Peter to the (Liberal Democrat) world...
John Waller
Chris Moore
Michael McDowall
Geoff Reid
David Symonds
13 Comments
” a real embarrassment”
I’m intrigued, apart from the chattering classes with a political axe to grind, who exactly is embarrassed by Boris Johnson. He doesn’t embarass most of the people I talk to, who actually believe he is more in tune with the public mood than the ’embarrassed@
He doesn’t embarass me anywhere near as much as the craven defeatism about our ability to exist as an independent nation, that is evidenced here and elsewhere on a daily basis.
Boris made a perfectly valid point, if the congestion charge system can deal with millions of vehicles seamlessly using technologies such as ANPR in London, then how difficult using the same technology would it be to deal with numbers that are a fraction of the traffic through London. Customs declarations at point of origin, would presumably be linked with ANPR on point of entry, and tariffs charged. This is not rocket science, it is not even difficult in technological terms. It will of course not stop the determined criminal who is happy to break the law, anymore than the current system works across Ireland works now, when there is an economic advantage to trade certain goods across the border.
Great speech from William but look at what followed. Viscount Hailsham (Conservative) laid into Mrs May and her Cabinet, condemning the damage they are inflicting on the country. He used much more intemperate language than that of Lord Wallace – presumably because he has no sense of humour so far as Theresa and Boris are concerned!
Barnaby, all I can say is that my perception on public reaction to Boris is different from yours, although I’m sure he has plenty of fans. And who do you mean by “the chattering classes with a political axe to grind”? Am I a member of the chattering classes? What about you? Isn’t “the chattering classes” purely a term of abuse used to diminish the value of what people who disagree with you say?
What I found very revealing in the William Wallace clip is the smirk on Boris’s face when the camera turns in his direction. Boris would rather be criticised than ignored – he will be delighted that you and I are corresponding about him.
The Irish are a proud people – or proud peoples, if you prefer. Isn’t it a tad arrogant and complacent to compare the North and the South to Camden and Westminster? Arrogance and complacency are traits many people associate with Boris Johnson.
But let me leave you with the following thoughts: if Boris wants Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to be as close as two London boroughs after Brexit, why does he want us to leave the Single Market? Isn’t that a massive inconsistency? Remember that being in the EU has strengthened this country enormously and empowered it as a player on the world stage. Boris and the Brexiter elite are willing to sacrifice that. Is this patriotic of them? I think not.
John McHugo
“…if Boris wants Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to be as close as two London boroughs after Brexit,”
He didn’t make anything like that kind of comparison.
I used the exact same ‘Congestion Charge’ analogy some 3 weeks ago here on an LDV thread, and the point I, and he, is making, is that the same technology is adaptable to being utilized as an invisible [frictionless], monitor of traffic carrying cargo which is pre-defined and verified, logged for a ‘to-from’ transit, and perfectly capable of allocating a tariff cost in the same manner that it can allocate a congestion charge as you enter London.
If the ‘Congestion Charge’ analogy somehow, bothers your frail sensibilities, then think instead of the ‘Smart Motorways’ system which is being implemented across much of the UK roadways?.
These newer traffic monitoring systems with intelligent networked software connections are nothing like the [dumb], stand-alone roadside speed cameras we’ve been used to. The sophistication behind these newer networked cameras have computational capabilities more that capable of managing frictionless traffic between a Southern and Northern Ireland. Just because you might be unaware of how a technology works, it’s foolish to jump to the conclusion ‘it can’t be done’.
The Irish customs border problem is only a problem in the minds of those belligerent politicians who are technologically ignorant of the possibilities, or more likely, mischievously intent on making it a problem, as a ruse to try to halt Brexit?
Sheila Gee – many thanks for replying to my comment. I don’t quite know why what I wrote led you to conclude that I have ‘frail sensibilities’, but please don’t worry about it. I am interested in debate on the merits of the argument.
I defer to you on the technology, but what you write doesn’t affect my point. What’s to stop free movement of people across the Irish border? Can technology do that? No, it can’t. If the Brexiter elite inflict a regime on us that makes us opt out of the 4 Freedoms, police checkpoints will be needed to prevent people smuggling, won’t they? And aren’t you assuming everyone will obey the law?
I’m not a politician, incidentally, although I am involved in politics and I certainly want to stop Brexit. Is that wrong of me? I believe it is my patriotic duty because I want what’s best for this country. Don’t we live in a democratic country where people have the right to change their minds? And isn’t part of that democracy the rule of law? What do you make of the Daily Mail calling some of our top judges “enemies of the people” for insisting that parliament should have a say? The Brexit vote made me ashamed to be English for the first time in my life.
Boris irritates me because he poses as a patriot, when I don’t think he is one. He’s all empty rhetoric with the surreptitious agenda of pushing his political career. This country has been so much stronger, so much more sovereign and so much more vibrant because of our membership of the EU. Now the Brexiter elite are putting an end to all that and diminishing Britain. They even say we are not a sovereign independent country until we leave! I fear they will just reduce us to President Trump’s Airstrip One off the coast of Europe.
John McHugo,
very well said.
And we should not overlook the bigger picture: A PM that is so provincial, awkward, and timid on the international stage (her primary personal Brexit motivation, IMO) that she does not mind Britain’s plummeting standing on the world stage being compounded by the most unsuited foreign secretary in history. This is how she represents her “global Britain”: a shy, provincial woman from Maidenhead and a failed commentator/mayor, both unable to build relationships with world leaders. Not to forget: a medical doctor, multiple expense-, travel-, and security-rule-violator as the Kingdom’s chief trade negotiator.
@ Arnold Kiel I’m sorry, much as I am opposed to her policies, I find your comments about Mrs. May her extremely personal and unworthy. I could retaliate by saying that your own Mrs. Merkel is clinging on to power by her finger nails. I am as opposed to your personal comments on Mrs May as I am to some of the personal comments about Mr Corbyn on LDV.
Brexit is far too important to stoop to that sort of level. You should do better.
David Raw:
I do not get what your complaint is about. It is my impression that Arnold Kiel is rather giving Mrs May the benefit of the doubt. I assure you other less worthy interpretations, interpretations that put her rather closer to her own Foreign Secretary in terms of fitness for office, are possible and also quite plausible.
Thank you, Martin.
David Raw, I thought that I had linked her personality-deficiencies sufficiently to her failure at the “far too important” task at hand to make them permissible aspects of a debate about Britain’s catastrophic figure on the world stage since June 2016, and, in a worst case, for years to come. I would never interpret your correct but not very enlightening comment about Mrs. Merkel (who is not my own) as retaliation.
I think I’d struggle to find anyone in the North who thinks Maidenhead is provincial but I think I know what Arnold means! Perhaps a better p-word would be “pygmies” but that may be an insult to the dimensionally challenged.
@ John McHugo
I would consider the chattering classes/establishment as those who think they are entitled to interpret the result of a democratic exercise against the backdrop of their own ideological zealotry. A case in point might be the 100% support of Welsh devolution certainly by Labour and the LibDems practically without comment, on the back of a referendum result of 50.3% for devolution on a pathetic 50% turnout, no questioning of its legitimacy, because both parties wanted it, so it is deemed an acceptable result.
In contrast because those same parties and same people are ideologically europhile, the 51.89% on a 72% turnout in the EU referendum didn’t pass muster, and those same parties and people deem it acceptable to use any, and all means including using the undemocratic Lords, they say they abhor, to try and undermine the democratic process. The chattering classes/establishment are not acting democratically in campaigning to rejoin the EU after we have left based on argument, they are tconniving to subvert a democratic decision before it has even been enacted using their establishment power.
As for your last paragraph, well as a LibDem you would say that wouldn’t you, yet you have been unable to convince the majority to accept or support that view for 40 years, and you still can’t, in fact the most memorable thing about the referendum campaign was the failure of any Remainer spokesperson when asked, including NIck Clegg, to name a single tangible bennefit of our membership against the costs, just a persistent stream of vacuous generalisations.
To get your ‘more EU’ since 1975 you have never had the confidence to ask the people, so the chattering classes/establishment, call them what you will, just sidestepped our democracy and handed powers over. The fact is you never took the people with you, because your journey was always based on deceit, subterfuge, obfuscation and dissembling, and you knew it was a journey they didn’t want to go on from the minute Ted Heath took us in, until the people forced the referendum to take us out.
“Diminishing Britain”, ” The Irish are a proud people”
The Irish are opportunists who don’t give a toss about the UK, and we know who seems to revel in portraying the UK as a basket case, and it isn’t the Brexiteers
Most of this debate is irrelevant. The question is not whether people can dream up ideas on how they would manage the Irish border, it is how the U.K. government intend to manage it. They have not said. The question is not whether people can dream up ideas for a better arrangement with the rest of Europe. The question is what is the U.K. government proposing. The fact is that we are leaving the EU. The rest of Europe has made its position clear. The U.K. government has not.
Thus is the U.K. government failing the whole nation.
Barnaby – many thanks for getting back to me, and for the courteous – if strongly expressed – tone of your reply. I don’t think there is a generally accepted definition of “the chattering classes”. With respect, I suspect you have devised your definition for this particular discussion. I see it is one of those deliberately vague expressions like “politically incorrect” that are intended to discourage debate. Incidentally, I only joined the Lib Dems in response to the Iraq war – so I am not guilty about anything to do with the Welsh devolution settlement.
I stand by my assertion that Brexit is diminishing Britain. I would have thought it pretty obvious. Not only is it hitting our economy but it is steadily reducing our standing on the world stage, much like a pinprick in an air mattress causing it to deflate. Other countries must be raising eyebrows and wondering if this country is still a reliable partner, and even questioning whether we are willing to fulfill our international obligations. Our diplomatic clout is reduced (consider how for the first time ever we do not have a judge on the International Court of Justice in the Hague). Our growth rate has slipped to the bottom of the European league, and we are faced with continued austerity in order to pay for Brexit. And while we gaze at our navels Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Somalia, Myanmar all continue to bleed.
I would not say this if I did not think this true, but the Brexit vote has hamstrung this country as a global player. I believe in Britain and want to be proud of my country (I campaigned for the UK to remain united in the Scottish referendum, by the way). Brexit makes me ashamed.
As someone with a little Irish blood in my veins I didn’t like your reference to the Irish as “opportunists”. If you go back to my post you will note that I said that the Irish are “a proud people or peoples”. I didn’t want to get into a debate about whether there is one Irish people or two. But let me ask you – do you think all Irish (Nationalist/Catholic/Gaelic on the one hand, and Loyalist/Unionist/Protestant on the other) are opportunists, or just those who fall into one of these categories? Aren’t you generalising? What do you mean? Substantiate or withdraw!