Endorsing a president who has engaged in so many acts against
international law strikes me as being the kind of endorsement
that we shouldn't be issuing at this time.
I don't think it should be seen as an endorsement.
I think when you have state visits there for state reasons.
It's actually in the sort of the ghost of the banquet.
Andrew was and still is a huge stain on King Charles.
Monarchy, unfortunately, is probably going to be one of the
things that King Charles is remembered for.
There was a attack. How worried would you be about
security? Hello and welcome to the
forecast. The king is in Washington for
controversial state visit in the immediate aftermath of an
assassination attempt on the president.
But our rogue gunman and LAX security?
Actually the least of Charles's concerns.
Some, like broadcasting royalty David Dimbleby, said the King
shouldn't go. There's the erratic behaviour of
Donald Trump, his scathing attacks on Keir Starmer, his
insult to British forces in Afghanistan and his threats to
the sovereignty of the Falklands, not to mention
Canada. There's his ambivalence towards
Ukraine and his humiliation of its president.
And of course, the war in Iran and its impact on Britain's
economy. All of that before mentioning
Epstein, Andrew and his barbs at Harry and Meghan.
But the British monarchy is one of the few things Trump always
seems genuinely thrilled by. So can the soft power of the
King get the British American relationship back on course and
change anything about Trump's behaviour?
Or is it just pageantry with no relevance to power and
diplomacy? To discuss all this, I'm joined
by Julie Montague, an American who married into the British
aristocracy and is now Countess of Sandwich.
Al Pinkerton is the Liberal Democrats Europe spokesperson
and a professor of geopolitics. And Sir David Manning was the
British ambassador to the US under Tony Blair and then an
adviser to Princess William and Harry.
So, David, let's begin first of all with, you know, what do you
think is the best they can hope for out of this royal trip?
King's going at a very difficult time, probably the most
difficult time in the bilateral relationship that any of us can
remember. But as you said in your
introduction, he does seem to be somebody who is respected by
Trump and admired by him. I think it's important not to
see the visitors political in its essence, though of course,
it can't be detached from its political context.
But what I think the king may be able to do is to provide
something of a shock absorber in at a time when things are very
difficult and a stabilizer to the relationship.
And I think remind Trump and remind the American people more
widely of the relationship that's very deep, very long
lasting on their 250th anniversary of independence.
So I do think it's important to distinguish between the idea
that he's going to be able to negotiate on that long list of
very difficult issues that you described and to provide what a
state visit provides, which is a a celebration and a reflection
on a relationship between two countries.
Al Pinkerton. I mean, what is it you're really
worried about? Is it that the king would be
humiliated or that you want to give a slap in the face to
Donald Trump? It's certainly not the latter.
I mean, I think there's a whole list of things that I could
recount, but I'll just give you my my top three.
First of all, diplomacy is a stage and meetings like this are
absolutely part of a kind of very carefully choreographed
piece of stagecraft. But as you said in your
introduction, this is an incredibly erratic president who
I who does not stick to the script and I think is going to
improvise his way through that encounter.
That's certainly the risk that he's that's what he's done with
other world leaders when they have attended the White House.
And I think that will put the King in a really invidious
position if he does go off script and does challenge the
King to to respond, which of course he cannot do.
I think the second point is the geopolitical context, whether
that be the threats that he's made against Canada, the
diminution of the Canadian Prime Minister referring to Mark
Carney as a governor, Carney claiming Canada as the 51st
state, that that's the King's realm that we're talking about
here. Not not least to say what he's
done in Greenland, in Iran, and then also the latest offence
over over the Falkland Islands. And then I think the final
thing, it's the optics. A royal visit is also a kind of
endorsement. And I think to be endorsing a
president who has engaged in so many acts against international
law, whilst we also talk about the vitality of international
law for our global system, strikes me as being the kind of
endorsement that we shouldn't be issuing at this time.
So there's a lot to pick up on there, and we will.
But Julie, I mean, how much of America do you think shares
Donald Trump's sort of awe? I don't think a large
proportion, to be perfectly honest.
In fact, I saw something on social media where they were
interviewing Americans in Washington, DC, and some of them
had no idea who the king was. So this visit is very different
from, let's say, when Queen Elizabeth the Second visited
there because she was this, you know, incredible woman long, you
know, the longest reigning monarch.
The king has only been, you know, the king for a few years.
So again, I'm not sure how much pageantry is going to be shown
apart from what we see in Washington, DC across other
Americans or states. It's, it's been very, I, I think
subtle this visit because Trump does shine the light on himself
all of the time. And yes, we talk about this
special relationship between the US and the UK.
And is it in decline at such, is it weakening?
But the special relationship that I think Trump views the UK
is, is the special relationship between himself and the royal
family. And for that, he definitely
doesn't want to put any stain on that.
So he will be on his best behaviour.
The true, the truth Social posts that will be coming out at 2 AM,
3:00 AM in the morning will be glowing posts.
I'm certain of that. So you, you, you don't share the
worries that he'll he'll go off script and say something
embarrassing. Absolutely not.
He will be on the best behavior. So, David, I mean, what about Al
Pinkerton's point about a royal visit being effectively an
endorsement? Is that true?
I mean, if you think about all the people the Queen used to
have to shake hands with, are they all endorsements?
Or is it is it just the job of a royal to do things like the
250th anniversary of the states of the United States?
I understand what I was saying. It's not actually a view I
share. I don't think it should be seen
as an endorsement. I think when you have state
visits there for state reasons, and I also think it goes much
wider than Trump. I think it's important to
remember that the King has been asked to go on the 250th
anniversary to celebrate relations between all aspects of
the two countries and their links together.
Now, I where I might agree with him is I'm not sure it was a
good idea to send the king so swiftly after Trump came to
Britain last year. It's it's odd to have a return
visit so quickly. On the other hand, this is the
250th anniversary of a relationship that goes back a
very long way. So I don't think we should see
it as endorsement for Trump. And it's perfectly clear that's
not where the British government is.
We've got some very profound differences with the Trump
administration at a time when it clearly doesn't share the same
view of the world as we do, and it's not underpinned by the same
values, unfortunately. But I think that the King's
visit needs to be seen in a broader context than that, as a
celebration of the two countries over a long period and the many
aspects of their relations. And as I said earlier, I think
there's also a possibility that he can help improve the climate
so that the debates that we're having and the very deep
differences that have now emerged can be dealt with in a
little less, a little less stridently than has been the
case in the last few days. I mean, have you seen the king
close up in a diplomatic setting?
I was, I was talking to one of one of the people closely
involved with this trip recently.
He was telling me about when Trump came over to to London and
spent time with the king. And the king and Trump sort of
get this time together where they are alone and, you know,
talking for quite some time. And he was saying, you know,
nobody knew what was going on. And they came out of it.
And it's had apparently gone incredibly well.
And the king had talked about things that Trump wouldn't have
agreed with, you know, but he does it in this rather
impressive way. I mean, is this just part of
sort of the mythology of around around the royal family or do
you think it's true? I don't think it is mythology
actually. I, the King, came twice to
Washington when I was ambassador there.
In those days, of course, he was the Prince of Wales and on one
occasion he came for a week or so.
In another occasion, it was much briefer.
And that's when I've seen him in action.
And he's in a very effective diplomat.
He's very good at reaching out to people.
And I think, you know, it's important to remember that
diplomacy is talking to people you often don't agree with.
And I think he's able to connect.
I think he probably is able to understand where the other
person's coming from. And I'm quite sure he's able to
put across his own views that may not at all be the same views
as Trump, but without being provocative about it.
So I don't think 1 should see it as as an as an endorsement of
Trump's views because he's talking to him.
On the other hand, I think he may be able to remind Trump of
all sorts of things that have been very important in the
relationship, like the contribution to British armed
forces, like our relationship over, you know, successive
international crises and do this very effectively.
I think it's important that he's able to do this privately.
And I think, of course, we don't want the session in the in the
chair, in the Oval Office where Trump is playing to the cameras.
You can't be sure that this is going to go completely to
script. You can't be sure that the
president won't say something disobliging or something.
But he's erratic. But I I agree with what was said
earlier. I don't think Trump wants this
visit to fail. I think quite the reverse.
And I think he will do his best to make sure that it it works
out well. Julie, I mean, you say a lot of
Americans don't really know who he is.
Do you think this king can engage with Americans rather
than, you know, beyond Trump? Well, we have to remember that
the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the signing of
the Declaration of Independence was, of course, because America
did not want a monarchy. And King Charles is coming over
there to sort of celebrate this, this momentous moment and the
special relationship between two countries.
So I suspect as Americans, you're more prone to engage in a
celebration around no kings because we've seen all of those
protests recently and continuing.
Does that mean Americans are sort of hostile to the idea of
kings? Yes, or or.
Just in their or just in their own country, I.
Think in their, I think in that, yes, it's a really good
question. I think in their own country,
absolutely. But of course there is this
connection with the United Kingdom and tourism.
Americans flock over here because of the, you know,
illustrious past, the 1000 years of history that the UK has, that
Britain has of, you know, of, of kings and Queens.
But going back to Sir David's points about point about this
conversation between a private conversation between King
Charles and Trump, I do think that King Charles will be also
very careful about what he says behind closed doors because we
know that in the past, especially with Megan and Harry,
you know, things to have turned out in a book.
They've been on an interview. They things that Charles has
said in the past has reached the media.
It can be quoted. He will be conscious of that.
I mean, I suppose the other point that people make is that
for all the success of Trump's visit to Britain, within months
he was threatening Greenland, attacking Starmer, attacking
NATO. You know what's what's the good
of a good relationship if that's what happens afterwards?
We often talk about the special relationship.
I don't think we're in a particularly special
relationship at all. I think we're in a very complex
situation Ship, to use the modern parlance right now.
I mean, David says that we don't want the United Kingdom, the
Prime Minister, the government don't want this to be seen as an
endorsement of Trump. But the truth is that's not
their choice. It's not their choice about how
this gets interpreted because the stage is in the United
States. It'll be up to Donald Trump and
the US media how this is determined.
And the fact that the king is going to the United States right
now with Donald Trump acting as he is on the global stage right
now vis A vis Canada, Venezuela, Greenland, the Falklands, Iran.
I think Donald Trump will take this opportunity to see this as
an endorsement, A normalization that look, diplomatic relations
continue despite everything I'm doing or maybe even because of
what I'm doing. That's, that's the downs upside
risk. This is a trip to my mind that
only has potential risks, perils and pitfalls.
And I genuinely can't see the upside opportunity because even
if this trip goes blindingly well, even if they, they connect
over a cup of tea and stories about his, his mother's
homeland, that will only last for 5 minutes.
Because next week he'll be attacking the United Kingdom
again, he'll be attacking Sadiq Khan.
He'll be saying that London is a city that has fallen.
And, and so he's so capricious and so quick to change his mind
that I think this is just filled with landmines.
But actually there's no long term benefit anyway.
I mean, there was. There was a really interesting
story from Rachel Sylvester and the Observer this this weekend
about how furious the king was when Trump denigrated the role
of British forces in Afghanistan.
And, and her story was that he'd actually wanted to get on the
phone and, and yell at Trump or do whatever the, the royal
equivalent of yelling is. And, and you know, and he, he
didn't in the end. But do you do you think he
should say something about the Falklands, for example, or
British forces or Canada while he's there?
I don't think he can because I, I think in unless he is sent
with explicit instructions to do that by the British government
and I don't believe that he will be, he is effectively silenced
in those moments. And that's rather different to
many other world leaders who sit with him in the Oval Office, who
could at least say something in retort.
He will be effectively silenced from, from doing that.
And of course, remember, Donald Trump a few weeks ago claimed
that the queen would have supported his actions in, in
Iran. That's another extraordinary
diplomatic faux pas for him to have undertaken.
So I, I, that's why I say this is filled with downside risk and
actually with very limited diplomatic opportunities.
So, so David, I mean, can he bring these things up and and
should he? Well, I think the first thing to
say is I don't I'm not in profoundly disagreeing with
without it is high risk visit and that's why we're having this
conversation. And once the announcement had
been made, it seems to me the visit was locked in barring the
most extraordinary circumstances.
Because if you hope, as I do, that it will provide anyway some
sort of shock absorber capacity and breathing space, to cancel
it when it's already been announced is simply to
exacerbate the problem you've already got.
Whereas you can hope that the king will have some effect in
stabilizing things. But it's perfectly true that
there are all sorts of risks here.
I'm not aware that that Trump leaked all sorts of things about
his conversations with the king when he came to London.
Perhaps he did and I'm not aware of it.
And I'm sure that the king was will certainly have been
extremely put out by what Trump said about the British armed
forces. I think there may be
opportunities to talk about this in general ways in the
bilateral, and there's certainly an opportunity to do it during
the state dinner when the king will be making a speech.
I don't I think it will be won't be full frontal.
It'll probably be fairly general and oblique.
But I don't think 1 should assume that that that
opportunity will necessarily be passed up to remind Trump of
what the British armed forces have been like to point out that
actually London is not a hellhole of crime.
And as some of the Trump administration seem to suggest
that actually Britain is a rather less violent place than
America, which we've just been reminded of this this very
weekend at the correspondents dinner.
I think there are. There are certainly messages you
can send without being, as it were, absolutely explicit.
You have also recently spoken about how you think the
relationship is fundamentally changed since Trump has come
come to power. I mean, do you think that is a,
a long lasting change? You know, is there a change that
goes beyond Trump or is it just this administration?
I don't think we know the answer to that, Krishna, but I think it
would be foolish to assume that things are going to go back to
the status quo ante. I think once you have had one
Trump administration and we all thought, well, we've learned
that lesson, now we have a second one.
And so I think you have to assume that something profound
has been changing in America. Now, it doesn't mean that if we
got a different administration, Democratic administration in in
three years time that there wouldn't be some very quick and
serious repair work undertaken. But nobody in future is going to
assume, as we have done until the first Trump administration,
that this relationship is bound to endure, that it is based
fundamentally on a shared view of how the world works and how
we would like it to work and on common assumptions.
Because that's clearly not where Trump is.
Trump's an America firster. He's transactional.
He isn't interested in free trade, human rights, all the
sort of things that have underpinned our relationship
with the United States. And I think where I absolutely
would agree, at least I imagine without, we've never had this
conversation, is that as a result of that whatever you hope
for in two or three years time, the only sensible thing for
Britain to do now is to salvage what it can with the
relationship with the United States and maintain it because
it remains crucially important to us in investment security and
so on. But at the same time, to re
insure elsewhere to build relationships that are much
closer with Europe, it's quite clear that that's what we need
to be doing urgently. We have the the, the, the twin
problems, the different problems, but Putin on one side
and Trump on the other and look more widely around the world to
Australia, Japan and so on. So I certainly don't think you
can expect the relationship to go back to where it was.
And I think it would be very foolish of us just to cross our
fingers and hope that somehow or other, everything's going to
turn out all right in 2029. Judy what?
What do you make of that? Well, it's as Sir David said,
it's almost going 2 steps back and it's going to be one step
forward with the next administration to.
And so that is, you know, he has dug a huge hole in this
relationship and it is definitely weakened.
It's not stable. And I, I know that many
Americans feel that as well. Of course you've got the MAGA
supporters. So I put them to one side.
But I do feel that the tide is turning in America with this on.
Predictability that he, you know, posts on his true socials,
what he carelessly says about world leaders and it's starting
to take effect and root in America, especially among the
independents and who many of them voted for Trump in the last
election. They are now, you know, they are
turning the tide and seeing how disruptive this administration
is on a global scale, I. Mean the the other thing that
you know, really isn't part of with the agenda and never never
really could have been, but it's been talked a lot in the media
is the whole Epstein survivors question, you know, whether the
king should have had some sort of meeting with with any of the
survivors. It always, it always struck me
as highly, highly improbable. But you have this sort of
situation where Trump is in some way tarred by, you know, the
whole question of how much transparency there's been over
the Epstein files. The king is caught in this bind
around his brother Andrew and the ongoing scandal, which he
denies, of course. I mean, is that is Epstein the
sort of the ghost at the at the banquet?
Absolutely. He's the elephant in the room.
And we know that many of the Epstein victims have come out
recently and said, I really want a chance to meet with the king.
Of course that's not going to happen.
This is, you know, a state banquet.
It's a it's a visit, but they are being vocal around it.
And Andrew was and still is a huge stain on King Charles
monarchy. I mean, on his reign.
Absolutely. I mean, that unfortunately is
probably going to be one of the things that King Charles is
remembered for. And of course, then there is an
association with Trump. So very difficult.
It won't happen. But I think it's I, I think it
is very powerful that these women are coming out and taking
a stand and saying we want to meet with you.
Oh, I mean. Is it, is it at all feasible?
I mean, could, Could the Queen, for example, who has spoken
about violence against women and sexual exploitation, could she
have done anything to reach out towards the Epstein victims?
Or is it all just too much? I mean, I, I think that is
possible. And I think if anyone was going
to do it, I think she would be an excellent candidate to have
that conversation. She's showing enormous
sensitivity around this topic. But of course it's not this is,
this is a, a trip not of her making it.
It is, it is not their program. This is the government's program
working with the United States government.
But I think, I mean, this is clearly the most appalling act
of, of international trafficking.
But in diplomatically speaking, this is another risk point
because all it would take is for a journalist to ask this
question in the Oval Office or elsewhere as presumably, given
the United States preponderance and, and, and conviction and
free speech, they could they could so easily do.
But then that creates that moment of embarrassment.
And who knows what then Donald Trump's response to that to that
might be I mean, I agreed with everything that David just said.
We need our relationship with the United States to be strong
to be in during, we need it to operate across multiple theatres
of economy and security. But my contention would be that
you achieve that not by at this moment putting a foot forward
engagement with a kind of proactive overseas visit.
I actually think that demonstrative cooling of a
relationship right now might actually be the better thing for
the long term sustainability of our relationship.
Because to be honest, we do need to work with other political
parties in the future. If, if this trip is perceived as
an endorsement of Trump now by Trump, by the media, by
Americans as a whole, then, and how can we say that we have an
interest in things like international law, which other
political parties in the United States do genuinely put as one
of their key mantras? My contention purely is that
sometimes you need to take a step back.
Now also remember, Krish, this this is not an unprecedented
situation. The 200th anniversary in 1976
was similarly controversial because we had, we just had the
Watergate scandal. There was genuine discussions
about who should go in 1976. Should it be the Queen or should
it be Prince Charles? As was in fact, the Queen did
end up going, but it was a very controversial it was.
It was a discussion that was proactively had at the time.
And there was a security scare as well, and.
There was a security scare, too. Absolutely so.
So this is not unprecedented. This is part of a long lineage
of royal visits to the United States.
So David, if you, if you were the ambassador today and the
Epstein survivors contacted you and said well, we would like a
meeting, how would you have handled it Well.
I think first thing to say is that I think this is a matter
that should be entirely left to the king and queen, whether they
want to meet the victims. And as I understand it, they're
not going to, but I believe the Queen may be meeting some women
who have suffered domestic abuse, but their obviously their
sympathy for the victims is not in any doubt.
I find this quite a curious stick with which if you like to
to beat us because this is an American crisis.
This is an American scandal and tragedy.
Of course, we know very well that there are prominent Brits
involved. But where is the demand to meet
the president of the United States and his wife to talk
about this? Why are we fixating on the king
and the Queen? So I think when we know that
successive presidents of United States have met the victims over
this, and then this has been going on a long time, maybe it's
then time for foreign heads of state to meet with them.
But I find it extraordinary that we should think that this is
this is something that should be particularly focused on on
Britain. And there's one other thing I
would say in reply to what Al said, and he's right about, I
know he feels strongly about this endorsement point.
I'm not clear that any Americans have said that the king
shouldn't come. And that includes Democrats.
And Democrats, I know, I think they want the US to recognize
the United States in all its complexity and not just send the
king as though he's some kind of token of appreciation of Trump.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps they'd rather he didn't
come. But I'm certainly not aware of
that. And.
And so, David, I mean, the other elephant in the room, if we're
using that image, of course, is the King's son, Prince Harry.
You know, he's, he's going to a country where he lives, then
they're not going to meet. Trump has recently been a bit
snippy about Harry and Meghan and some comments to the to the
media. How awkward is that dynamic?
Well, I think I would detach the family relationship from the
official visit. You know, it's perfectly clear
that Harry and Meghan are not going to be meeting the king
during this. Yes, you're quite right.
President Trump, snippy about the President Trump, pretty
snippy about everybody, pretty snippy about the Pope.
But I don't think you should allow this to get in the way of
the business that's in hand and the role that the king is trying
to play. So again, I mean rather rather
like you know your earlier question about his relationship
with Andrew, I don't think myself that it's material to the
to the main purpose of this visit.
Julie, I mean, do do you have any sympathy with Megan and
Harry? Well, I was commentating at
their wedding back in 2018 at Windsor Castle and you know, it
goes, I go back however many years, that is 8 years.
And it was just this incredible environment where it blue sky,
people were cheering and this was supposed to be the new
modern couple. And we can see how that's
completely fallen off a Cliff and this division that's
happened. But we have to remember that
this is a royal visit. This is duty coming 1st.
And just like the Queen always put duty 1st and she did, King
Charles is doing the exact same thing, duty first.
He's there to represent the UK, as, you know, as the King.
And it is not an opportunity for him to then, you know, head to
California and visit his, his son and daughter-in-law and two
grandchildren. What do you think the dynamic is
with Trump and Megan? Why does he dislike her so much?
Well, because she's been quite vocal.
She's, she's very, she's always been very vocal.
We have to remember that with Megan, you know, even when she
married into the royal family, one of the things that she found
very difficult and almost demoralizing was that she wasn't
allowed to use her voice. And she's been very political
about her views on Donald Trump, as has Prince Harry.
So I suspect now is not the time to have that reunion, if there
was to be 1. How do you think, how do you
think it's come about that the British public seems so, so on
the King's side, if you like, you know, I mean, the public
seems to love William. And Catherine?
And Catherine, they have warmed to the King and Camilla and they
seem to loathe Harry and Meghan. Is is that APR campaign done
well or? It's it's very when you unpack
it, it's too much. So Harry and Meghan went into it
too much. They said too much, they wrote
too much, they told too much, and they wouldn't stop.
And it gets to that point where the American public is saying,
you know what, actually stop. Enough is enough.
This is your family. At first it comes out as really
good gossip, and then it becomes tiring.
And I think the American public has tired of that.
Whereas you, you look on the flip side and you look at the
Prince and Princess of Wales and the King and Queen.
And they stayed relatively be silent about this.
And silence sometimes can be your best weapon, Al.
The the man we haven't already spoken about is, is Keir
Starmer. And obviously Trump is being, I
mean, just bizarrely critical and scathing of Starmer and
insulting. Now politically at home, it's
probably doing Starmer some good is the truth.
But it is a very odd diplomatic situation, isn't it?
I mean, you presume the government is not expecting the
king to try and rescue Starmer's position with Trump.
Well, I don't know, I mean, but maybe that is what they're
they're hoping to some extent because otherwise I I don't know
really why there's. A personal situation.
Well, well, possibly. Possibly because, you know,
after all, support for the United Kingdom surely should
mean at least if not support for Keir Starmer, but at least a
dialling down of the tensions that exist between the White
House, Donald Trump and Keir Starmer, even though Keir
Starmer never seems to truly answer, you know, answer back.
I mean it, it is the most unprecedented breakdown in
diplomatic relations between 2 two partners.
That's why I say I think the special relationship is
currently in tatters. It's a currently a very there's.
Always nonsense, wasn't it? Well, yeah, I mean, probably a
bit nonsense, but it was. But at least it had some
plausibility because at least it was polite enough to be
plausible. It's now not even polite enough
to to be plausible. I mean, it's, it's a fundamental
breakdown. And of course, it's not just
Keir Starmer. It's it's, it's Sadiq Khan in in
London. It's the denigration of
everything from our warships and our aircraft carriers to NATO
to, you know, to, to the, to the reputation of the British Army
in Afghanistan. It just seems that every,
everything connected to the United Kingdom is under some
kind of attack, either by Donald Trump himself or by the broader
MAGA movement. And, and, and that's not just
the White House directing this stuff.
There seems to be something far bigger at play.
There is a huge global disinformation campaign against
the United Kingdom, against our politics, our, our health
service, the presence of Islam in our country as a, as a
religion. There's just seems to be so many
things going on right now that seem to be used very
purposefully to whip up a kind of MAGA base, and the United
Kingdom, for some reason seems to be the foil that the
algorithms are using to try and push that narrative.
So, David, do you think the government will want this visit
to make things a bit easier for Keir Starmer I?
Think they want the visit to make things easier to discuss
the issues that are difficult between us.
The special relationship I think remains special in some respects
because the commitment that we have to one another on in the
defence, intelligence and nuclear fields continues day by
day, whatever Trump says. But of course it makes it much
more difficult to sustain. And I, I suspect, like Al I, I'm
wary of this term and always have been in, in, in my own
case, because I think it's made Britain lazy.
I think it's always made us think, oh, well, whatever
happens, the Americans will have our back.
And we now find with Trump, who doesn't share our values or our
outlook, that this isn't necessarily true.
And we are faced with an extraordinarily difficult NATO
summit in a few weeks time. And we may find out what,
whether Trump still believes in NATO.
And we, we, you know, have, have that guarantee anymore.
But I, I, I don't think that we should assume that we, it's
completely in tatters as Al describes it.
I think it's very difficult. And I think trying to manage it
through this Trump period is what we have to do.
But we are not alone. Trump isn't when Keir Starmer
isn't uniquely in Trump's sight, He happens to be, you know, the
the person who has been taking the Flack recently.
But Macron has had plenty of trouble from and Trump has
served lots of other European leaders.
One of the oddities about this president is he seems to be far
ruder about his notional allies and he is about United States's
notional opponents. And this is obviously making the
the transatlantic relationship very difficult, which is why I
think, as I said earlier, that even if Trump is, you know,
going to leave the scene in two or three years and there might
be a change, we in Europe have to recognise that that the
assumptions that we've been working on no longer hold.
We can hope that things will get better.
We can hope that in the aftermath of this visit, our
bilateral relationship will improve, or at least that the
discussions that we're having on all these difficult issues like
Russia, Ukraine, train in the Gulf may be more temperate.
But fundamentally, we know that Trump is volatile and
unreliable. And I don't think it would be at
all sensible to hang hopes on one state visit, whether it's
ours or the state visit of any other country, to assume Trump
is suddenly going to change his spot.
He's not but. Do you think you can separate
the special relationship or the diplomatic relationship from the
relationship between Trump and Starmer?
Not wholly, of course. You can't leave.
The relationship at the top has always mattered a lot.
It hasn't always been as warm as some people imagine, but what it
has been based on, much more than personalities, is a shared
view of the world and shared assumptions.
And so when Lyndon Johnson got very angry with Harold Wilson
because Harold Wilson wouldn't send troops to Vietnam, or when
Eisenhower got very cross with Eden First, the Suez episode,
the bilateral relationship between those personalities was
very strained. But the outlook, the common
assumptions, the idea we share interests between the two
countries was not fundamentally challenged.
That is the effect of Trump. And we are in a different place.
And so when I say the special relationship, I think it is now
fairly technical and covers those areas I've described.
But let's not forget, you know, Trump isn't America.
There are an awful lot of Americans out there who don't
like what he's doing. His poll numbers are terrible,
and they don't like his foreign policy, and they don't like the
way he's apparently appeasing Russia and they don't like the
way he's treating America's partners and allies.
So I think we need to keep some sense of perspective here, so.
Just finally, Julie, I mean, you know, there was a gun attack in
the hotel on Saturday nights. How?
How worried would you be about security and the King's visit?
I don't think that there really is great alarm.
You know, they would have everything put in place anyway.
They were just, I suspect Buckingham Palace yesterday as,
you know, it was all being reported.
Are they, you know, guessing if they're going to still come, but
they were just in conversation and maybe they're going to
heighten their security. But, you know, this is months in
advance planning and I think that every precaution will be
taken. I, I don't think any of us
expected Charles to King Charles to, to cancel.
But again, they're reviewing it as they should do, but I don't
think that there's any risk. Alice, is this just another
element of uncertainty? I think it's just another
element in the jeopardy that is this trip.
I mean, the timing of that security alert yesterday is
clearly, you know, very, very poor timing in terms of the the
the preparations for this visit. I don't think actually that
should materially change the the overall risk profile of the
trip. I'm sure the security is already
top notch, but I think of course, what that does
represent, it's just the, the, the sheer political divisiveness
in the United States right now that the, the toxic debate
that's taking place. And of course that that is the
context. That's the political context
into which the king is is travelling a a population who
don't seem to be supporting this president terribly strongly, who
I think are rightly judging him for the appalling actions on the
global stage, but also just the daily discourse that he engages
in. So I think I'm more concerned
about what that assassination attempt, the context from which
it emerged, rather than the attempt itself as a material to
to the security of the king. And so so David, your successor
in the British Embassy, Christian Turner, apparently
told staff that the approach was keep calm and carry on.
Would that be yours? Yes.
And I know Christian. We worked together when I was in
Washington. He'd be a very good ambassador
and very cool. Well, thank you all very much
indeed for joining us. That's the forecast.
Until next time, bye bye.