logo
MP Phil Brickell column - 'We live in an increasingly turbulent world'

MP Phil Brickell column - 'We live in an increasingly turbulent world'

Yahoo23-05-2025

Foreign affairs – that doesn't matter to me or my family you might think.
Actually, what goes on in the world and how the UK can influence it is critical to our daily lives.
In previous columns I've set out my views – on the NHS, on crime, on the environment. But for this column I want to let you know more about the jobs" target="_blank">work I do on the Foreign Affairs Committee, why it matters and how it's done.
We live in an increasingly turbulent world – whether that's because of climate change, conflict abroad, the rise of authoritarian governments or the breakdown in the post-Second World War multilateral system.
Britain is uniquely placed to tackle many of these issues. Issues which have real-life consequences for irregular migration, the cost of living, our economy and the UK's ability to influence neighbours and allies. And with war in Europe and conflict in the Middle East we see the actions of other states having visible impacts on our own streets.
I serve as one of only 11 MPs on the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. Not all MPs are members of a select committee - formal groups of parliamentarians which scrutinise the work of a government department.
So, as a relatively new MP, it's a real privilege to be given the opportunity to hold the government to account, to hear evidence from policy experts and to provide policy recommendations to the Foreign Office.
The Committee is made up of seven Labour MPs, two Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. Crucially, it works across party lines to propose policy solutions to the Foreign Office on some of the most difficult issues of the day including:
· The conflict between Israel and Palestine
· Russia and Ukraine
· The UK's reset with the European Union
· Britain's role on the global stage – including our soft power assets such as the BBC World Service and the British Council
· How the United Nations works and the UK's role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council
· The effectiveness of the UK's sanctions regime – against Russia but also other state and non-state actors
What we don't cover, but may take into account as part of our work:
· International aid - covered by the separate House of Commons International Development Committee
· Asylum and immigration – covered by the Home Affairs Committee
· Foreign direct investment into the UK – covered by the Business and Trade Committee
· UK military strength and security – looked at by the Defence Committee and Intelligence and Security Committee
We usually meet formally twice every week when Parliament is sitting –on Monday afternoons and Tuesday mornings. Those sessions give me and my fellow MPs the opportunity to quiz witnesses on particular topics. We typically invite academics, foreign diplomats, think tanks, MPs from other countries and government ministers to speak in order to understand the latest developments in the relevant country and what UK policy might be.
Sometimes those meetings will be private – given the confidential nature of the evidence given, or because of diplomatic sensitivities. Many of our sessions are broadcast live and you can watch them from home.
Occasionally, we will write to the Foreign Secretary or Foreign Office ministers questioning their policy objectives or asking what assurances they can provide around their work to-date.
And we also produce written reports on our enquiries as well, which are published and usually picked up by UK media.
But it's also vital that we have a deep understanding of the issues at hand, which is why the Committee travels to countries of focus. At the start of this year I was on a delegation to Paris and Brussels to explore how the French government is tackling the rise of foreign dis- and misinformation and what we might learn from that. In Brussels we discussed the UK EU relationship, and the reset summit which was held earlier this week in London.
In addition, we meet informally with ambassadors, representatives of international charities and supranational organisations (e.g. the United Nations), MPs from other countries and foreign policy experts.
Those informal sessions provide a vital opportunity to delve into issues in further detail and to understand how our relationships with other countries can be improved – whether that's to create more jobs at home, improving security for British tourists abroad, helping British interests in general.
The Foreign Affairs Committee is just one component part of my work as a Member of Parliament. It sits alongside being a constituency MP, a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and my involvement in a number of All Party Parliamentary Groups.
At a time when geopolitics has never been more in flux, its vital we have the very best policy to ensure a strong, safe Britain. I'm proud to play my small part in making that happen.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - Trump got this one right: A smaller National Security Council staff is actually a good thing
Opinion - Trump got this one right: A smaller National Security Council staff is actually a good thing

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Trump got this one right: A smaller National Security Council staff is actually a good thing

President Trump's decision to downsize the National Security Council staff has evoked howls of protest from members of the media and from former NSC staffers under President Joe Biden — at times they are one and the same. These critics argue that Trump is 'removing part of his government's brain' and increasing the risk of America being unable to address and respond to a developing crisis. Their case would be much stronger if the NSC had, for example, understood the risks of a hurried withdrawal from Afghanistan and planned a more deliberate departure from that country. Biden had reduced the size of the National Security Council staff, which at its apogee under President Barack Obama stood at 400. Yet the Obama administration failed to stop Bashar Assad's chemical attacks on Syrian rebels and negotiated an agreement with Iran that Tehran began to violate before its ink had even dried. Nor did a 200-person NSC staff under President George W. Bush successfully coordinate the warring State and Defense Departments — a contributing factor to U.S. failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is noteworthy that President George H.W. Bush — who managed a highly successful foreign and national security policy, including an outright victory over Saddam Hussein — relied upon no more than 60 NSC professionals. Their leader, Brent Scowcroft, is widely acknowledged to have been the most capable of all post-World War II national security advisors. Bill Clinton's NSC staff coordinated a relatively successful national security policy that included the expansion of NATO and the successful defenestration of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and the end of the Balkan Wars. Clinton had increased the NSC staff by 50 percent from the previous administration, but it still numbered less than 100 officials and was half the size of Biden's NSC cohort. What emerges from this tale of fluctuating numbers is that the size of the National Security Council staff matters not nearly as much as both its mission and the cohesion — or lack thereof — of the agency heads that constitute the council itself. For the elder Bush, as well as for Clinton, the NSC staff functioned as a true coordinating body, offering the president top-level policy choices while allowing the agency heads to manage their own respective operations. Biden, and even more so Obama, sought to usurp the operational responsibilities that rightly resided with the agencies that constituted the NSC, and essentially micromanaged foreign and national security policy. Of course, there was no way that a staff that at most numbered 400 people could do the job of agencies with several orders of magnitude more personnel. Trump's approach to downsizing the NSC staff certainly involves risk. That is not because of the smaller number of staff, since a small staff would have no option but to focus on coordinating the activities of Cabinet agencies. Rather, it is the manner with which the staff has been reduced, and the capabilities of those personnel who will populate it. Laura Loomer, the conspiracy theorist and gadfly, is hardly an expert in either national security policy or personnel management, and her attacks on several highly talented NSC staffers should have been ignored by the president. On the other hand, it is not as if the remaining NSC staffers will necessarily be a bunch of incompetent dunderheads. Moreover, if, as it appears, the leading agency heads in Trump's second administration will cooperate with one another — much like Secretary of State James Baker, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Scowcroft worked hand-in-hand, even as they offered H.W. Bush alternative approaches to policy — then all that Trump needs is a small staff that coordinates the agencies that constitute the NSC. Some have argued that Marco Rubio's multi-hatted role as Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor gives the State Department an upper hand in policy making. Many of those making this case are the very people who previously expressed concern that State had been sidelined by the Pentagon and was a shell of its former policy-making self. In fact, although Rubio is no Henry Kissinger (and many of Trump's older critics hated Kissinger too), he certainly can ensure that State's concerns receive the same due consideration as those of Defense, or for that matter Treasury. That is not a bad thing at all. Finally, some argue that the NSC staff will simply offer up to Trump whatever it is that he wishes to hear. Perhaps. But a smaller staff by definition will be unable to stifle the views of agency heads, all of whom will offer the president what they view are the best possible choices in any given circumstance. National Security Council staffs, like the agency heads, serve at the pleasure of every president, not only this one. It is their job to ensure that his policies meet with success. They may have different views about which policies accomplish his objectives, but they all share the same goal. One can argue the wisdom or correctness of Trump's policy decisions, but like all his predecessors, the last word will always be his. And the job of the NSC staff is not to preempt the Cabinet and other top agency heads but to ensure that the president has the most viable alternatives from which to choose before he decides upon a given course of action, whatever it may be. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Could Elon Musk Be Deported By Donald Trump? What to Know
Could Elon Musk Be Deported By Donald Trump? What to Know

Miami Herald

time2 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Could Elon Musk Be Deported By Donald Trump? What to Know

Steve Bannon has called for Elon Musk to be deported from the United States, after the dramatic bust up between the tech billionaire and President Donald Trump. In his War Room podcast Thursday, Trump's former White House chief strategist from his first term said: "Elon Musk is illegal … Deport immediately." The validity of Bannon's claim about Musk's naturalized U.S. citizen status is now likely to face more scrutiny than ever. Newsweek contacted Musk for comment on Friday via emails sent to the press offices of Tesla and SpaceX, where he serves as CEO, outside of regular office hours. Over the past few months Musk had been one of Trump's closest political allies spending $292 million to support him and other Republicans during the 2024 presidential election, providing vocal support on his social media platform X and heading the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) which he left at the end of May. However, in the past week this relationship unraveled and Musk has now suggested Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance, while the president suggested Musk's companies could lose government contracts potentially imperiling SpaceX's relationship with NASA. Speaking to the New York Times on Thursday, prominent conservative commentator Bannon said: "They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately." Bannon later doubled down on this argument during an appearance on his War Room podcast when he said: "Elon Musk is illegal, and he's got to go. He's illegal? Deport immediately." "You're going to ship these other people home. Let's start with the South Africans, OK?" In October, 2024, the Washington Post published an article claiming that Musk had previously "worked illegally in the United States" by setting up a company while on a student visa in 1995, despite never enrolling in Stanford University as promised. Citing "former business associates, court records and company documents" the publication said Musk used a J-1 student visa to enter the U.S. but instead worked on a startup that became Zip2 without the requisite work visa. According to the Post, in a 2005 email used in a defamation lawsuit, Musk admitted that he applied to Stanford because he otherwise had "no legal right to stay in the country." The case was raised at a campaign event by then President Joe Biden who said: "That wealthiest man in the world turned out to be [an] illegal worker here when he was here. "I'm serious. He was supposed to be in school when he came on a student visa. He wasn't in school. He was violating the law. He's talking about all these illegals coming our way?" In a post on X shortly after the Post's story was published Musk denied the allegation against him, saying: "I was in fact allowed to work in the U.S." Born in Pretoria, South Africa, in 1971, Musk moved to Canada in 1989 and later to the United States in 1992 to attend the University of Pennsylvania. He became a U.S. citizen in 2002 through the naturalization process after several years of living and working in the country. U.S. law states that citizenship gained through naturalization can be revoked if it was "procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation." Speaking to Wired about Musk, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law expert at Cornell Law School, said that if the claims of illegal working are true "on purely legal grounds, this would justify revoking citizenship, because if he had told the truth, he would not have been eligible for an H1-B, a green card, or naturalization." Amanda Frost, a legal expert at the University of Virginia, said: "If a noncitizen violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa, and then adjusted to immigrant (green card) status without admitting the violation, and then naturalized without admitting the violation, that person could be denaturalized on the ground that their naturalization was 'illegally procured." In a string of attacks on Friday, Musk called for Trump to be impeached, described what the president called his "Big Beautiful [spending] Bill" as "The Big Ugly Bill" and said Trump's tariffs policy would cause a recession in the second half of 2025. Trump fired back on his Truth Social website claiming Musk "just went CRAZY" adding: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" As the row intensified Musk posted: "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public." But Musk provided no support for that claim. Trump's name features in some previously released court documents on Epstein, but he has not been accused of wrongdoing, and there is no evidence he is mentioned in any unseen files related to Epstein. In a post on X, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk said: "Let me get this straight: Democrats tried to put Trump in prison for 700 years, take his business empire from him, impeach him twice, take him off the ballot, and censor him on all social media-all the while they were sitting on info that Trump was on the Epstein list? This is total and complete nonsense." Reacting to the Trump-Musk bust up House Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: "Oh man the girls are fighting aren't they?" On X, Ashley St. Clair, the mother of one of Musk's children, posted: "hey @realDonaldTrump lmk [let me know] if u need any breakup advice." It remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk feud will continue and if so to what extent it will influence government policy. Trump has not given any indication he think's Musk's American citizenship should be investigated and according to Politico the two men are due to speak on Friday. Related Articles Russia's Medvedev Mocks Fight Between Donald Trump and Elon MuskDonald Trump's Gold Card Sees Rich Applicants Flock to 'Red Carpet Visa'China Takes Another Step Toward Global Political PowerIran Importing Missile Fuel From China as US Tensions Rise: Report 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store