Reader Q&A: ask Rafael Behr your questions now

It’s 10 years since the Brexit vote – and it’s also another one of those weeks in British politics … you asked our political columnist questions about a Burnham government, rejoining the EU, and more – read the Q&A below

DyvimTvar asks: How do you think Burnham will deal with Trump? More of the same or will he be looking at the likely result of the midterm elections in the US?

Raf: Burnham’s foreign policy is very mysterious. He very rarely talks about the world beyond British shores, and has said quite explicitly that his focus is getting things right “in this country”. That worries me slightly. Foreign affairs dominated Starmer’s diary for a reason and the world isn’t going to calm down. My guess, and it is little more than a guess, is that once he gets the defence and security briefings that explain quite how reliant UK national security is on US institutional partnership (regardless of who the president is) he will respond pretty much exactly as Starmer did. And yes, the midterms will be crucial. A lame duck Trump could become much more volatile but also much more bogged down in running battles – even impeachment proceedings – with a hostile Congress

Raf: 1: The defence and security partnership with the US is extremely tight and bundled very deep. Much of the UK’s defence capacity really relies on the Pentagon. In this respect the “special relationship” is hard-wired in. That isn’t an argument for just sucking up to Trump regardless of what he does, but it does explain why Starmer had to tread very carefully indeed. There is a case for seeking much more strategic autonomy from Washington but that’s a challenge to be met over a generation. Can’t be done quickly and is very expensive.

2: The fiscal rules thing is both more complex and simpler than often presented. Ultimately everyone involved, including the bond traders, know it is an artificial construct, but the rules do function as a commitment to recognise finite budget capacity, which matters. Yes, there are arguments for borrowing more to invest in the productive capacity that will generate more revenue in the future, through higher growth. By this mechanism, we should be able to loosen the reins a bit on the understanding that the benefits will accrue soon enough. Bond traders understand the macroeconomic logic of that argument but they don’t necessarily trust the politicians to really be thinking about the long term. It could too easily sound like the chancellor is saying “I want to borrow a load more money so I don’t have to make hard spending/cuts choices in the run up to an election, but I promise I’ll get it all sorted the moment after polling day.” If you don’t have credible revenue projections, the market is going to be very sceptical. As it was with Liz Truss. Ultimately the bond market is just the mechanism by which the UK government borrows money and, like any lender, it sets the terms according to how confident it is in the reliability of the borrower. The fiscal rules are a convenient badge of seriousness for a country that has, sadly, been rather too unserious in the recent past.