Keir Starmer embraced the spirit of Boris Johnson last night. As the FT reports:
Sir Keir Starmer has rejected “utterly” the idea that Britain will have to choose a side between Donald Trump's incoming US administration and the EU, in a set-piece foreign policy speech in the City of London.
Speaking at Guildhall, the UK prime minister vowed to strengthen relations with Washington, Brussels and Beijing, as he promised to put foreign policy at the service of his government's main mission: economic growth.
Apparently Starmer can reject all the EU stands for but have good relationships with it. Reconsideration of the single market, free movement and the custom union is not required.
We can also achieve a good relationship with the EU despite embracing all that Trump will have to offer, even though trade war with Europe is clearly on his agenda. We quite emphatically will not need to pick sides.
Meanwhile, China is our friend. None of the stresses that Trump might create with it will have impact on us.
There will be no fallout from Ukraine of any consequence.
And Starmer obviously had so little to say on the situation in the Middle East, or what Israel might be up to, that the FT forgot to mention his comments. I doubt that was oversight or neglect on the FT's part. The Guardian made the same omission. It is, instead, indicative of something much more significant, which is the fantasy land in which Starmer appears to be residing.
In Starmer's world view the UK is obviously so important to everyone that whatever disputes the other countries in the world might have, they will want us to be their friend. Whilst offering such friendship, these countries will be so aware of Starmer's goal of economic growth in the UK that they will do nothing to disrupt the possibility of him delivering on that promise. All, in other words, will be well in the world with Starmer in charge. There is nothing to worry about.
My problem is that I have heard this all before. It became so well known for a short period of time that a word was created to describe it. That word was cakeism. This is, of course, the philosophy of Boris Johnson. It is based on the idea of English exceptionalism, the reality of which must, according to its exponents , be so apparent to the rest of the world that they will do nothing to upset it.
And every single element of this idea is utter nonsense.
Nonsense it might be, but it would seem that Starmer has fallen for it. All was well in the Guildhall last night. It was just in the world outside it that one or two little issues existed that might disrupt that view, but Starmer was quite confident that none of those involved would in any way wish harm to the UK, Starmer or Rachel Reeves' desire to balance her budget. In summary, we really do have nothing to worry about. We can have our cake and eat it. And the sadly deluded are still in charge.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] have already mentioned Keir Starmer and foreign policy in one blog post this morning, and now I must do it […]
Looks like there will be an early test of Starmer’s principles. Musk has promised tens of millions to Farage to fund his anti-woke far right campaigning. Labour sources have floated the idea of tightening up UK electoral law to prevent our democracy being further undermined by foreign billionaires and governments.
Will this ever happen? Will the fact that Trump is a fan of Farage lead Starmer to overrule plans to protect our democracy?
I think what you ay simply highlights the difficulty in managing international relations a this time. I know you want to turn on Starmer at every opportunity but even you much appreciate there are no simple or correct answers on the world stage at the moment. Yes you could can say Starmer “rejects the EU and all that it stands for”. This is highly disingenuous as you forget the UK voted for Brexit. Some balance is needed in your narrative.
We were fraudulently induced to reject the EU, and it was a single protest vote.
There you go, I have restored the balance.
Now, what would you like me to solve?
“… the UK voted for Brexit.”
Yes, it did. A trading nation, heavily dependent on imports, abandons its closest trading, cultural, diplomatic and mutual defence neighbours (an advanced market of 450m people); thereby giving Putin and Russia the biggest boost to its international ambitions to destabilise Europe and the West since WWII (while simultaneously inviting Putin’s oligarchs to invest in London), and deprives Britain of 4% of its GDP with almost immediate effect (around £100Bn that cannot realistically be replaced) votes to make itself poor, and weak. That began in 2016. Here we are in 2024, impoverished by the effects, with no solutions and no coherent way out the mess; and Russia emboldened. And your answer? Richard to find some “balance” by excusing Starmer’s trifling, inadequate response to the serious trouble Britain is in, after decades of catastrophic failure in government; and continually voting for more of the same. Do you have no conception at all of what we have done – most of all, to ourselves, and to the prospects for our, and Europe’s future?
“This is highly disingenuous as you forget the UK voted for Brexit.”
This is slightly inaccurate on your part.
“The UK” did NOT vote for Brexit. England and Wales did. By roughly 52% to 48% Leave/Remain – a result which Our Nigel said (if Remain/Leave) would be too close to call and we’d need another referendum. c 27% didn’t vote at all but (unusually?) this wasn’t taken to maintain the status quo.
NI and Scotland, which are part of the UK voted Remain. In Scotland’s case emphatically. Every Council area voted to stay in. And Gibraltar (which everybody seems to forget) was even more emphatically in favour of remaining at c 96% on turnout of over 84%.
The balance I’d inject would be that I initially thought his comment that we had to make having left work. (If for no other reason than because the UK would be lucky to get back in!) And he had a point that it was the hand Westminster had decided to play. However, subsequent actions do seem to indicate that Sir KS (who, you seem to forget, was a Remain supporter) seems to have done a volte face and be rejecting compromises as avidly as any tory leaver ever did.
My objections to his approach to the difficulties of managing international relations at this time would be:
1) I don’t see any indication that he’s ‘managing’ relations at all
2) More importantly, I can’t see any evidence that’s he’s standing up for what’s right – not even domestically, let alone on the international stage
Thanksc
His comments are a value free zone, he is hoping to seem open to as many people as possible whilst I imagine he will support whatever ends up being the more dominant force over time.
Non- committal, loose, capricious, this is not leadership.
When you choose to work like this, you tend to get swept along by agendas and not be part of setting them.
Agreed
Certainly, it is a “value free zone”…. but whatever his stance, what influence does a small island off the North East coast of Europe expect to have?
North east coast?
Remind me to bring my own sextant, compass and chart if I ever go sailing with you
As long as FPTP rules, and the cost of entry to the real ‘electoral market’ in the UK for a political party to be able to compete with the £20m+ income of each part of the Single Transferable Party applies as an unbridgeable fact of politics; Cakeism will forever remain the official chosen ideology of the British people. We really have to put the responsibility squarely where it belongs; even in this wonky democracy, the electorate chose Brexit and its own dotty form of splendid isolation*; and has to accept it too has responsibility for the impenetrable mess we have created.
And have no doubt, this is largely a self-created mess.
*Splendid Isolation is a policy associated with Lord Salisbury (1830-1903) for a world and Empire he didn’t know and couldn’t imagine was already in its sunset years; although he appears never to have used the word ‘splendid’. For Cakeists there are no sunsets, but Britain can find a way through modern world via a strategy conceived by a mixture of the craft of the Artful Dodger and Del Boy; the apt legacy of Thatcher and inspiration for Cakeism. Boris Johnson is the Apotheosis of Cakeism.
“to indicate that Sir KS (who, you seem to forget, was a Remain supporter)”
BREXIT is a failure so why not admit one is/was a Remainer or has changed their position. Average people are constantly doing this on YouTube, TikTok and any other SM channel that will give them air time.
Try as I really have, I cannot figure out what Keir Starmer really wants: He is not a Labourite but on the other hand he is not really a Thatcherite. What his the Starmer agenda? Does Sir Keir even have an agenda?
Dear BayTampaBay,
You have the nail on the head. No steer Kier does not appear to have an agenda.
The worst of all worlds beckons for the UK.
We shouldn’t forget that about 37% of eligible UK voters opted for Brexit. 35% voted to stay in. 28% didn’t vote. So stating that “the British people” supported Brexit is stretching things a bit. It also part- explains why so many public opinion polls, that ask a selection of the whole population about their views, regularly reveal majorities in favour of closer relations with the EU ,if not fully rejoining.
Suggesting that there might be electoral mileage in becoming,at least, “EU adjacent”. A safe bit of cake to eat, surely. Whereas Trump is unpalatable to most Britons. Especially if he appears hostile to our interests.
So why should Starmer try to look balanced? Unless US oligarch’s money talks louder than British votes.
“Trump is unpalatable to most Britons”
@New Flame
Trump is unpalatable to most Yanks! However, many former Democrat voters held those nose and voted for Trump because they think they want change. They are mistaken in their thinks(s) as what they really want is stability so they may plan for the future. These are people who are willing to play by the rules if you tell them what the LONG TERM rules are and tell them what the goals are to meet the objective for achievement to benefit from said long term rules. In short, these live long Rank-n-File Democrat turned Trump votes want “direct tangible benefit” to their household (gas at $1.50/gallon, their school teacher or nurse grandchild to be able to but a starter home with no help from the First National Bank of Mom & Dad, people who speak fluent English taking their order at their favorite Burger Joint and freedom from being smacked in the face with the LGBTQ issue they can not comprehend but respect as “in do what you want to do but do not do it in the street and freighted the horses”).
In my arrogant Yank opinion, the BREXIT vote was no different.
BREXIT voters wanted an additional $370 million a week spent on the NHS above the already line item yearly NHS budget with “Call The Midwife” and “Doc Martin” GP services for all, money spent on immigrant/refugee housing redirected to housing their children and grandchildren in social housing, school places for their children and grandchildren at any school they wanted to attend in their catchment area (this is not a problem in the USA) , “Levelling-Up” of infrastructure (this is not a problem in the USA on a day-to-day basis) and their children and grandchildren not having to move to London to make a living.
No one( most people) in the UK got what they wanted with their BREXIT vote. The Democrats will re-take both the House and Senate chambers in the USA 2026 midterm elections if Trump does not deliver IMMEDIATE “direct tangible benefit” to USA households.
Thanks
Be reassured Tampa Bay there is nothing ‘arrogant’ about stating an opinion. And anyway, it encourages debate.
@Pilgrim Slight Return
“And anyway, it encourages debate.”
True! However, I must remember at all times that I am an invited guest to a private English Salon.
On the other hand, I could NOT let the comment pass regarding “Democrats Stayed Home” as that is NOT what happened. Being a long winded person, especially in the evening after a couple of glasses of wine, I can sometimes ride the “High Horse” a little to hard.