On 8 March, Ed Davey made a statement condemning the King’s potential visit to the US in late April. Davey stated that the visit would hand another “huge diplomatic coup” to President Trump amidst the US-Israeli strikes, which Davey denounced as “illegal” and “devastating the Middle East.”
The UK seems to agree. YouGov polling figures show that 46 per cent agree with calls to stop the royal visit, 36 per cent say to go ahead with it, and 18 per cent are unsure.
But what sort of message would this send? Certainly one of animosity towards the words and actions of the most powerful man in western politics.
Put simply, cancelling the royal visit would be disastrous in terms of preserving the lingering remnants of the special relationship, following Starmer’s refusal of US use of British airbases in Iran. In a moment where Britain truly can’t afford to lose the support of its largest trading partner, one must consider the overall ramifications of alienating the US. Whilst it is true that Trump is an intolerable and petty statesman who has insulted both the UK and its Prime Minister, he is just unpredictable enough to make a snub like cancelling the Royal visit hurt.
Taking the moral high ground in this situation is as pointless as it is risky. What would Davey’s proposal achieve? The UK would bear the brunt of US ill will, resulting in, perhaps, further economic measures against us. We’ve witnessed such reactionary measures with Spain, who refused to support the US-Israeli military operation and thus were threatened with a halt of trade. Provoking Trump in this way would only negatively impact Britain, especially given Trump’s rather anglophilic nature regarding the monarchy.
It has been long known that Trump himself delights in the pomp and ceremony of the British Monarchy, and allowing King Charles to flatter the President in this way may allow tensions to be soothed, as well as proving that the monarchy may serve some practical value, a feat which has been difficult to prove as of late.
Davey’s calls for a Royal rejection of the US are therefore ill advised. Whilst morally one must applaud the sentiment of taking a stand against our illegally-war-mongering, felony-committing neighbour across the Atlantic, if the result may be increased economic measures that will terribly affect the day-to-day for our own countrymen, why would Starmer or the King take this gamble? Though the idea of being self-protectionary and safe is often denounced as weak, encouraging diplomacy is the only way to somewhat curb the international strife which Trump is capable of unleashing.
“President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump’s Trip to the United Kingdom” by The White House is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.
Related
Make the Royals Useful Again: How the King’s Visit Could Patch Up the ‘Special Relationship’
On 8 March, Ed Davey made a statement condemning the King’s potential visit to the US in late April. Davey stated that the visit would hand another “huge diplomatic coup” to President Trump amidst the US-Israeli strikes, which Davey denounced as “illegal” and “devastating the Middle East.”
The UK seems to agree. YouGov polling figures show that 46 per cent agree with calls to stop the royal visit, 36 per cent say to go ahead with it, and 18 per cent are unsure.
But what sort of message would this send? Certainly one of animosity towards the words and actions of the most powerful man in western politics.
Put simply, cancelling the royal visit would be disastrous in terms of preserving the lingering remnants of the special relationship, following Starmer’s refusal of US use of British airbases in Iran. In a moment where Britain truly can’t afford to lose the support of its largest trading partner, one must consider the overall ramifications of alienating the US. Whilst it is true that Trump is an intolerable and petty statesman who has insulted both the UK and its Prime Minister, he is just unpredictable enough to make a snub like cancelling the Royal visit hurt.
Taking the moral high ground in this situation is as pointless as it is risky. What would Davey’s proposal achieve? The UK would bear the brunt of US ill will, resulting in, perhaps, further economic measures against us. We’ve witnessed such reactionary measures with Spain, who refused to support the US-Israeli military operation and thus were threatened with a halt of trade. Provoking Trump in this way would only negatively impact Britain, especially given Trump’s rather anglophilic nature regarding the monarchy.
It has been long known that Trump himself delights in the pomp and ceremony of the British Monarchy, and allowing King Charles to flatter the President in this way may allow tensions to be soothed, as well as proving that the monarchy may serve some practical value, a feat which has been difficult to prove as of late.
Davey’s calls for a Royal rejection of the US are therefore ill advised. Whilst morally one must applaud the sentiment of taking a stand against our illegally-war-mongering, felony-committing neighbour across the Atlantic, if the result may be increased economic measures that will terribly affect the day-to-day for our own countrymen, why would Starmer or the King take this gamble? Though the idea of being self-protectionary and safe is often denounced as weak, encouraging diplomacy is the only way to somewhat curb the international strife which Trump is capable of unleashing.
“President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump’s Trip to the United Kingdom” by The White House is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related