TALKING POLITICS

David and Helen try to make sense of where we've got to, though things are moving fast (*episode recorded before the Scottish court judgment*). Can parliament force Johnson's hand in the Brexit negotiations if he is still PM? Will Labour hold together now that it's become a second referendum party? Could the revocation of article 50 become a real prospect? Next week, on to the Supreme Court. We also pay tribute to our dear friend and colleague Finbarr Livesey, who very sadly died last week. Talking Points: People have claimed moral victories and rhetorical victories this week, but what actually happened? - Boris is still Prime Minister, and the opposition organized behind legislation that requires him to ask for an extension. - But the EU will want a reason. And Boris wouldn’t be breaking the law if he said there was no reason, or that it was purely political. Is it possible that all this turmoil actually gives Johnson more leverage with the EU? - Unless there’s movement from the Irish government, it will be extremely difficult for the EU to move. - The DUP’s position is weaker now, but a Northern Ireland only backstop would be a massive crisis for the Union.  There appears to be a new centrist group in Parliament with Stephen Kinnock and others trying to rally in support of a deal.  - But the numbers are very small and they’ll have to defend the fact that they voted against the withdrawal agreement before. What about Labour? - Labour has now become the second referendum party but there are still a lot of questions. - If Corbyn weren’t the leader of the opposition, would a vote of no confidence have passed? - Did Labour make the wrong call on an election? - Meanwhile, the Lib Dems seem to be moving towards a “revoke” position.  The constitution is in uncharted waters: there’s a government with no majority that wants to call an election and Parliament is saying that the electorate cannot have a say. - Do the courts have the authority to reconvene Parliament? Further Learning:  - How Would a Second Referendum on Brexit Work?  - Helen on bending the constitution for the New Statesman - Is it Legal?  - The Talking Politics guide to… the UK constitution And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Helen Thompson and Adam Tooze take us beyond Brexit to look at the global situation and the bigger threats we face. Italy, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Russia, Trump vs. the Fed, the US vs. China, Hong Kong, the dollar, the euro, climate change, oil: an amazingly wide-ranging conversation that somehow manages to connect it all up. Talking Points:  Christine Lagarde will take up her post at the ECB relatively soon. Does her most recent speech fit into a narrative of a French victory in the euro struggles? - Lagarde has clearly asserted the necessity of continuing the Draghi agenda, but augmenting it with fiscal action. That’s the big question mark. - There are still fundamental, unresolved issues: banking union and Italy’s sovereign debt. The condition for making Italian fiscal activism safe would be some agreement to collectivize a large portion of Italy’s sovereign debt. How that’s accounted for, and whose balance sheet it would fall onto is the real issue. - Do you really want to activate a major fiscal stimulus in the German economy? - This might be a good moment for a political deal between the North and South because the engine of German manufacturing is slowing down. What’s happening in Germany is less to do with the Eurozone and more to do with China and to some extent the Eurodollar system.  - The Germany economy is export-centric. It won’t respond to stimulating domestic demand. - If we accept that the status quo is dangerous, then fiscal policy has to be more transformative. - Trying to figure out what is actually causing the weakness in the world economy is perhaps more important than the confrontation between Trump and the Fed. Something weird is going on in global capital markets, which means that the Americans are suffering basically no bond-market punishment despite extraordinary dysfunction.  - At the same time, interest rates have plunged. - This allows Trump to politicize things further. - It’s both a return of the past, and something entirely new. - The eurozone does appear to have a disciplinary role. The idea of a euro-state leaving the eurozone still seems unconscionable.   China clearly wants to escape a dollar world. Could this deal with Iran make it possible? - They want to be able to buy oil in their own currency. - But the dollar and the U.S. banking system are still America’s ultimate weapons. How big is the risk of a major global economic slowdown?  - It’s already happening in Germany, Latin America, South Africa...  - The question is scope: it hasn’t yet spread to the services sector.  - There’s a variety of different economic ailments, but this is a real risk. Mentioned in this Episode: - Adam’s recent article in the NYTimes Further Learning:  - Why is Trump attacking the Fed?  - Adam Tooze on Europe - Adam Tooze on the US vs. China And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

With British politics in disarray, we try to sort out what's a stake - legally, constitutionally and electorally. Can Johnson refuse to do what parliament demands? Can Corbyn get the election he wants? What is Dominic Cummings playing at? And how much is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to blame for the mess? Plus we explore the likely choices ahead for voters and politicians and we ask the big question lying behind all the drama: is this a question of politics or is it a matter of law? With Helen Thompson and Kenneth Armstrong. Talking Points: What was Johnson trying to achieve with prorogation?  - Deliberately provoking the opposition? Making it look like Parliament had been defeated to push the EU to work toward another agreement?  A lot is going wrong for the government right now and it is struggling get to the general election it wants to fight. - Helen thinks that the actual goal is an orderly exit from the EU. - But people don’t believe Johnson when he says he is serious about getting a deal. Corbyn says that the opposition wants a general election, but only after no deal has been ruled out. - But if the election takes place in mid-October and Johnson wins a majority, he could overturn any legislation outlawing a no deal. - Parliament could still revoke Article 50. This might be the best case scenario for Johnson because he could then have a Parliament vs. the people election. - The assumption seems to be that the government cannot be replaced, but it also can’t do what it wants to do. - Everyone seems to be trying to tie someone’s hands, but how do you create the politics where you can actually do things? At some point there will be a general election: the government is framing it as a choice on Brexit.  - May tried to do that in 2017 and failed.  - But Johnson isn’t May, and he’s running on a more populist, anti-austerity platform. - What does Labour want to fight this election on? Would they fare better in a Brexit or non-Brexit election? - The Lib Dems are in a very different position this time. This is an unusual government: the stories about Dominic Cummings are damaging, but it doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere. - A referendum is very different than a general election.   Mentioned in this episode: - Catherine Haddon on the Fixed Term Parliaments Act - Stephen Sedley on Jonathan Sumption and the rule of law for the LRB Further Learning:  - Scottish Court rules that prorogation is lawful - On challenges around a bill to prevent no deal - David and Helen talking about prorogation on the 538 podcast And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to political philosopher Clare Chambers about marriage as a political institution. How does it reflect the power of the state?  How does it alter power relations between individuals? Should everyone be allowed to get married or should we move away from marriage altogether? A fresh, radical look at something we often take for granted. Talking Points: What makes marriage political? - Marriage is an institution recognized by the state.  - It also structures the way people relate to each other along gendered lines, as well as those of race and class. Most of the clear legal inequalities in marriage have been reformed in contemporary Britain, but there is still significant practical and symbolic inequality. - Different sex married couples tend to exhibit more gendered behavior than unmarried couples. - We still view marriage as a goal, particularly for women. And for women, marriage often comes with a number of identity changes. When the state recognizes marriage, it is endorsing, or affirming the position of being married. - Does making marriage more accessible make it more equal? - Same sex marriage is one of the amazing succes stories of the last decade. Why are we so drawn to marriage? - What marriage means for people may be out of kilter with its legal condition. - There’s no official government position on the legal implications of marriage. - Most people believe that common law marriage exists: it doesn’t.  - If you’re not married, you have no legal protections. When it comes to protecting children, it might make more sense to focus on parenthood than marriage. - In countries like the UK, only about 50% of children are born to married parents.  Further Learning: - Clare’s website - Against Marriage (Clare’s book) - Clare talking about the politics of marriage at LSE - Clare at the Cambridge Festival of Ideas talking about marriage And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Special cross over episode with the FiveThirtyEight politics podcast from America, hosted by Galen Druke. On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that he had asked the queen to suspend parliament in September, reducing the amount of time lawmakers will have to debate legislation related to Brexit. John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons ,called the move a “constitutional outrage.” In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Helen Thompson and David Runciman discuss what qualifies as a constitutional crisis and whether they think Britain has reached that point.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

David gives another in his series of talks about democracy. This one draws on the theme of his new book Where Power Stops: The Making and Unmaking of Presidents and Prime Ministers. From Lyndon Johnson to Boris Johnson, does power reveal the true character of politicians or do politicians reveal the true character of power? What sets the limits to what presidents and prime minsters can do? And how do we find them? https://profilebooks.com/where-power-stops-hb.html The books that have had the single largest influence on modern Western politicians are Robert Caro’s biographies of Lyndon Johson. - These books are a love letter to politics: the glory, the grind, the graft. - Johnson’s life is a tale of redemption: he was a terrible man, but he did some great things. - Johnson’s life shows that individual politicians can make a difference. This is a story that a lot of politicians want to hear. Caro says that the lesson of Johnson’s life is that power corrupts, but power also reveals. David disagrees. - Johnson wanted to dominate. Compassion was not who he really was, it was just another tool at his disposal. - To show he deserved power, Johnson had to do what Kennedy couldn’t do: civil rights and the great society. - It’s not that power reveals the person, but the person reveals the nature of the power.  - Politicians don’t really change. And they often don’t really hide who they are.  - When they get to the top, you see not who they are, but what that kind of person can do with power.  Are Trump and Boris Johnson part of this pattern? - We haven’t discovered anything about Trump we didn’t know before. - Much more has been revealed about the institution of the presidency than the man. - What makes Trump different is that he doesn’t seem to believe that his power is subject to any constraints. This could actually change the institution. - Boris Johnson is different. For one thing, he is capable of shame. But he is also willing, potentially, to treat the limits of office as if they aren’t there. Further Learning: - David’s new book, Where Power Stops - The Caro biographies of Johnson - Caro on chasing Johnson’s paper trail - Yuval Noah Harari - Michael Howard on Talking Politics And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to historian Chris Brooke about ideas of a united Europe that long pre-dated the advent of the European Union. Since the eighteenth century philosophers, lawyers, diplomats and revolutionaries have constructed schemes to bring Europe together economically, legally and politically. How do these plans compare with what actually happened? Talking Points:  Where does the idea of a union of European nation states come from? - The conversation about union predates the consolidation of European nation-states. - In the 18th century, Britain and France are long-established, but much of the rest of Europe isn’t really what we would call nation states. - The common threads in these earlier projects are the notion of “perpetual peace” and commerce. How do you create a union when some states are much more powerful than others? - You can’t escape geopolitics.  - From the 18th century onwards a widespread theme in arguments for European union are fears of growing Russian power. - The European integrationists often take themselves to be critics of the balance of power, but at some point they realize that they’re actually trying to produce a new balance of power on the global level in response to the rise of America and East Asia. - The Europeans want to both counter and copy America.  The key predecessor to the customs union was the German Zollverein, which linked together the Western states in the German confederation. - Union became a live political issue in the 1890s after the American tariff walls. - In the end, these earlier projects failed because of animosity between the French and Germans over Alsace-Lorraine. - The early legal conversations about union have disturbing racial and imperial subtexts.  The First World War gave rise to the League of Nations, but this was not a purely European project. - To understand the contemporary European union, you really need to look at the end of the Second World War. It’s hard not to think of the 18th century schemes and 19th century proposals as antecedents to what actually happened. - But many things were still contingent. For example, the French were interested in cooperating because they wanted to shore up their empire in Africa, which collapsed soon after the Treaty of Rome. Further Learning:  - Follow Chris on Twitter @chrisbrooke - A blog by Chris on the 18th century debate on European union - Jeremy Bentham’s plan for “an universal and perpetual peace” - On Napoleon and the European Union - Rosa Luxemburg denounces “The United States of Europe in 1911 And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to lawyer and constitutional expert Alison Young about the current pressures on the UK constitution, from Brexit to devolution to political polarisation. Is parliamentary sovereignty still the linchpin of the system? What changed with the arrival of the Supreme Court? Can the constitution survive in its current form? Talking Points: How should we think about parliamentary sovereignty in the UK constitutional order? - The idea is that legislation enacted by parliament is the highest form of law in the land. - Unlike most other systems, the UK does not have a written constitution that is above legislation. What does this mean for the Union?  - In a nutshell, Westminster can still override other parliaments.  - The civil convention is the idea that Westminster won’t legislate in the devolved areas or change the devolved structures without the consent of the devolved bodies. - But this can’t be legally enforced, and Westminster doesn’t always comply with it.   - The UK doesn’t have a federal system: there aren’t the same legal limits on Westminster but there are legal limits on the devolved bodies. - In short, the institutions are permanent but their powers aren’t. Did Parliament limit its sovereign powers when it created the Supreme Court? - Parliament could still abolish the court, but that could also trigger a constitutional crisis. - It’s not necessarily the Supreme Court that has limited parliamentary sovereignty.  - EU law has primacy and direct effect. This is a restriction on parliamentary sovereignty. - Another tension is how the courts are beginning to interpret legislation. Brexit has led to renewed focus on parliamentary sovereignty. On the one hand, we see the reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty against the executive. On the other hand, the Brexiteers see themselves as this very principle from the EU. - The Gina Miller case revolved around the tension between the government and parliament—whether the government could trigger Article 50. This case actually reinforced parliamentary sovereignty.  The referendum created a tension between the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of parliament. - This is the problem that has not been resolved. Further Learning: - The UK Constitutional Law Association - Alison’s article on populism and the UK constitution - Alison on “The Briefing Room” - Jonathan Sumption’s Reith Lectures on “Law’s expanding empire” And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to historian Jill Lepore about the idea of nationalism in America, from the birth of the Republic through to Trump. What defines the nation? Why does the illiberal version keep getting the upper hand?  Are there any politicians in America who can rescue the idea of liberal nationalism? Plus we ask Jill what she thinks of Johnson, Brexit and nationalism in the UK. The Union won the American Civil War, but the South won the peace. - The South won the peace by persuading the North both to undo the terms of Reconstruction and to remember the war as being about something different than it actually was. - The Confederacy was founded on the premise of racial hierarchy. - Reconstruction began as essentially a military occupation of the South to reinforce the new amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing equality for all people - But it was ended prematurely and the federal government wound up conceding the constitutionality of the Jim Crow laws that reenforced racial hierarchy. When did cities stop being a part of “the nation?” - To some on the right, there’s no such thing as a liberal nationalism or liberal patriotism.  - Trump sets the nation against the government. - Historically, the term “globalist” is code for antisemitism.  - The environmentalists may have replaced the old “internationalists.” The classic error on the left is to speak to either subgroups or the world. - Looking at the Democratic presidential candidates, you don’t really see anyone talking about what the nation is. - The concept of the “nation” is now one of the things that divides generations. - Obama did talk about the nation a lot—this is part of what made him so powerful rhetorically. There are competing notions of nationalism. On the one hand, you have an enlightened, liberal nationalism, which is about guaranteeing equal rights to citizens. On the other, there is illiberal nationalism, which is premised on exclusion.  - Right now, illiberal nationalism seems to have the upper hand. Further Learning:  - Jill on why America needs a new national story - What if Reconstruction hadn’t failed? - David Blight on the Civil War and Reconstruction, 1845-1877 (Open Yale Courses) - America First?  And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to public policy expert Dennis Grube about the changing character of the civil service, from Victorian mandarins and Yes, Minister to the current battles over Brexit in the age of Twitter.  Senior civil servants increasingly find themselves in the public eye, expected to communicate their views. Has this politicised the advice they give?  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to political economist Helen Thompson about the birth of the Euro and its tortuous recent history. Whose idea was it in the first place and how much of its current troubles were baked into its origins? A story of ambition, intrigue and unintended consequences. Talking Points: The euro was the brainchild of the French government, sometime around late 1987. - The French had become extremely dissatisfied with the exchange rate mechanism. They thought the set-up benefitted Germany to the expense of everyone else. - France saw monetary union as a way to Europeanize monetary policy. The French persuaded the rest of the European community to set up a committee to look into monetary union, which was chaired by the former French finance minister. - He understood that union would have to be on German terms: there would be an independent central bank committed to price stability. - Helmut Kohl also wanted shifts on the institutional questions within the European Community. The Maastricht Treaty was agreed in December 1991—ratification went on for two years. - The treaty is about much more than monetary union. - During contentious elections, Kohl started talking about monetary union as a symbol of European peace rather than a purely macroeconomic issue. The general improvement in economic conditions in the mid-1990s allowed the monetary union to proceed. - This doesn’t mean that there weren’t significant issues, but there wasn’t an existential crisis like the one that would emerge in 2009 with Greece. Before the euro itself got going, there was the convergence of interest rates. Even for states like Italy and Greece, that has been a clear advantage. - You also see some alignment on inflation.  - But you don’t get fiscal convergence. Some states run much higher deficits than others. If the euro were to end now, it would be because of an implosion not states voluntarily seceding. - There is more skepticism over the euro in Eastern Europe. There is a recession coming; this will put more pressure on this system. - The flashpoint may be Germany.  - There is going to be considerable pressure to go back to quantitative easing. Whether Draghi’s successor can secure tacit German approval is a different question.  Further Learning: - Helen for the LRB: Will the EU hold?  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We ask regular TP contributors and guests to tell us about the books they've most enjoyed recently and the ones they are looking forward to reading this summer. History, science fiction, philosophy, memoirs and a little bit of politics too: it's all here. Sarah Churchwell - My Face for the World to See, Alfred Hayes - In Love, Alfred Hayes Chris Bickerton - The Man Without Qualities, Robert Musil Hans van de Ven - The Great Flowing River, Chi Pang-yuan Helen Thompson - Dominion, Tom Holland - The Hotel Years, Joseph Roth - The Emigrants, W.G. Sebald Dennis Grube - The Fifth Risk, Michael Lewis - Middle England, Jonathan Coe Catherine Bernard - In our Mad and Furious City, Guy Gunaratne David Runciman - From Bacteria to Bach and Back, Daniel C. Dennett  - Stories of Your Life and Others, Ted Chiang Clare Chambers - Invisible Women, Caroline Criado Perez - Normal People, Sally Rooney Chris Brooke - On Mercy, Malcolm Bull Paul Mason - Love Song: The Lives of Kurt Weill and Lotte Lenya, Ethan Mordden Tom Holland Nefertiti’s Face, Joyce Tyldesley  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to historian of China Hans van de Ven about the origins of the CCP and its extraordinary rise to power. How has it managed to adapt to the changes of the last forty years and what lessons will be drawn as it approaches its one hundredth birthday? Talking Points: The Chinese Communist Party is an incredible success story. A group of students met in Shanghai; 30 years later, they were running a vast country. - A lot of luck was involved. If the Japanese hadn’t invaded, they never would have gone anywhere. The CCP didn’t become a Maoist party until the Second World War. - Communist parties are supposed to thrive in cities, but Mao turned his attention to the countryside. - Mao was a great tactician of violence. He was heavily influenced by Clausewitz. - Mao was also able to draw in both the youth and the intellectuals. The West tends to see Mao’s death as the decisive shift, but Mao himself allowed new people to come to the fore, including Deng Xiaoping. - Tiannamen was an existential threat to the Party, and it extended far beyond Beijing. The Party is still the dominant institution in Chinese life. Although Chinese life is more pluralistic under market reform, the Party still calls the final shots. - China has always been highly commercialized. Viewing reform as “Westernization” may not be the best approach. A key element of the Chinese political tradition is a direct connection between the highest and the lowest rungs of society. New technology makes this easier.  - The leadership is extremely concerned with what people are thinking. As the 100th anniversary of the Party approaches, the leadership faces a dilemma: taking the history of the Party seriously could threaten its present legitimacy. - How do you explain all of the suffering? You can’t just ignore it. Further Learning: - Hans’ book, China at War: Triumph and Tragedy in the Emergence of the New China - ChinaFile - A guide to China from the Council on Foreign Relations Recommended Reading:  - A Critical Introduction to Mao Zedong, Timothy Cheek, ed (CUP, 2010) - Mao's Little Red Book: A Global History, Alastair Cook (CUP, 2014) Red Flags: Why Xi's China is in Jeopardy, George Magnus (Yale, 2018)  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We talk to historian Sarah Churchwell about the Gilded Age in late nineteenth century America and the comparisons with today. Rampant inequality, racial conflict, fights over immigration, technological revolution: is Trump's America repeating the pattern or is it something  new? Talking Points: In 1873, Mark Twain and Charles W. Warner coined the term “The Gilded Age,” in their eponymous novel.  - The phrase was re-discovered in the 1920s and applied retrospectively to the period of the 1870s-roughly 1900. - The Gilded Age satirized the way wealth and consumerism were taking over American life and showed how this move towards a “huxterist” culture was subverting America’s democratic ideals. Yet this was also a period of real growth.  - The major transformation of the period was the railroad.  - Rampant inequality characterized the era: the robber barons on the one hand, and poor immigrant communities on the other. But in the middle of this, there was also a group of people working their way into the middle class. Immigration, particularly from Eastern Europe, exploded during this period. - America did not have immigration control.  - The first immigration laws were passed in the 1880s and 1890s, most notably the Chinese Exclusion Act. Reconstruction overlaps with the Gilded Age. - There was no redistribution to the former slaves. Johnson effectively pardoned the former Confederates.  - The Klan emerged during this period as domestic terrorists. - This ultimately leads to the Great Migration, African Americans leaving the South to seek opportunities further North. The bridge between the Gilded Age and the Progressive Period was the age of populism. - William Jennings Bryan was a grassroots populist who almost became president. - There are many echoes to the present moment: white working class men asserting their right to be middle America at the cost of excluding other communities. Is this a new Gilded Age? - Today, the tech giants are cornering technology the way that Carneige cornered steel.  - But maybe the gilt is the story, and the exceptional moments are the aberrations.  Further Learning: - Sarah’s book, Behold America - Chapters of Erie, Henry Adams  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Boris Johnson is off to see the Queen to become her 14th (!) Prime Minister, but where might he be taking the country this autumn?  We try to work through the various Brexit scenarios, from a renegotiated Withdrawal Agreement to a crash no-deal exit. Can the backstop be changed? What is a 'standstill' arrangement? Will Macron force the issue? Plus we explore whether an early election or a second referendum can really provide a way out of the mess. Something's got to give - what will it be? With Helen Thompson, Catherine Barnard and Chris Bickerton. Talking Points:  Can you change the backstop? - Deep changes seem unlikely, though maybe some changes around the edges would make it more sellable. - If the DUP won’t swallow it, will Johnson have to essentially sacrifice Northern Ireland to get a deal? - But cutting out the DUP presents a problem for parliamentary arithmetics.  - The things that Johnson wants to discuss are in the withdrawal agreement. Europe is not open to talking about these things.  What is GATT Article 24 5b? - This is the idea that you could have a “quick and dirty” free trade agreement ready to go on the 31 Oct.  - The trouble is that the law gets in the way: the EU has to agree with it. - From the EU perspective, any agreement will require that the UK addresses citizens rights, money, and the backstop. - The idea that there’s some kind of standstill option is a unicorn. There’s a change of leadership in the EU as well. Does it make any difference? - The instability in German politics deserves more attention. - The Franco-German relationship is in a worse place than it was in March. - If the German position is weakened, this could strengthen Macron and the harder line. When will the moment of truth come? - The sequencing here is incredibly complex. - At some point, Johnson’s government will have to make a choice. Will it be over an election? Over no deal? - A confidence vote isn’t a last resort for Tory remainers, but it’s very close to it. - We also need to think more about the legal realities of a no deal Brexit.  Mentioned in this Episode: - Who is Boris Johnson?  - More on GATT Article 24 Further Learning: - Catherine on the EU and the conservative leadership race - Helen on geopolitics, the EU, and Brexit And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talking  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.