Latest news with #UKForeignPolicy
Telegraph
5 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Britain must not recognise Palestinian statehood
A seismic shift in the UK's foreign policy could dramatically emerge over the coming weeks as the Government considers whether to recognise a Palestinian state. Faced with such a landmark decision, we must all hope that the Government is thoroughly stress testing the law of unintended consequences. The Mayor of London certainly hasn't, given his spectacularly one-sided and performative intervention which failed to even mention Hamas. We are united in our desire for an end to the cycle of unbearable violence in the region, but make no mistake, this dramatic move would backfire by rewarding the extreme protest groups which are actively threatening our democracy and pose a clear and present security threat to the British public. Advocating for the Palestinians is a legitimate cause, but there are countless examples of Islamist extremists and far-Left groups hurling abuse and threats at elected politicians, disrupting the public through criminal acts and intimidation, targeting Jewish places of worship and gathering and even shaping the outcome of elections. On so many occasions we have witnessed outright calls for the destruction of Israel as well as the verbal and physical targeting of 'Zionists' (a not-so-clever code word for Jews). It's the violence that led the government to proscribe Palestine Action, not the peaceful advocacy. Ever since Hamas unleashed its heinous pogrom against Israel on that dark October 7 day, Britain's urban centres have been repeatedly turned into seething rivers of rage and intolerance far beyond the realms of freedom of speech – especially Sir Sadiq's increasingly lawless London. Calls for violent jihad and the flags of terror groups brazenly displayed. Shop windows smashed. Terror attacks on the Israeli Embassy in London thwarted. Universities and cultural events invaded and subverted. Actions once unthinkable have effectively been normalised. Ever more people drawn into unacceptable behaviour. They will rejoice should Labour prematurely recognise a Palestinian state. Note, moreover, that 147 states have already recognised Palestine, without any improvement in the situation. The international law requirements for recognition of a state are a permanent population, defined territory, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. 'Palestine' meets none of these. A sham recognition will do nothing to change the facts on the ground. This Government has stoutly defended international law and should not contemplate its undermining by mob force and intimidation. The sobering findings of the Commission on Antisemitism by Lord Mann and Dame Penny Mordaunt, alongside StandWithUs UK's report into rampant anti-Semitism at universities, should give the Government pause for thought before taking actions which could add to an already combustible situation. Rather, top of their agenda should be the implementation of the recommendations of that Commission. Recent polling of Palestinians shows that a future Palestinian state is likely to be governed by Hamas rather than the deeply unpopular Palestinian Authority. Despite being proscribed as a terror group in the UK, the Government is risking presenting Hamas with the ultimate gift of statehood. Hamas' leaders have been clear about their intentions to repeat the October 7 massacre again and so the nightmare will tragically continue for Israelis and Palestinians alike. It would also pose an enormous challenge to the UK's overstretched police forces and a major test for our exceptional security services. Their efforts to counter those that support terrorism at home would be compromised by the very legitimacy that the British government would bestow upon Hamas and hence its followers. British cheerleaders of Hamas can hardly believe their luck. Nor can Iran, whose fingerprints are visible on so much of this – its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be emboldened to plot even more terror attacks on UK soil. Public displays of anti-Semitism will become the norm. The list of harmful consequences goes on. It would create a crisis in the UK's all-important relationship with the US at a time of global precarity, and send a signal to the likes of Iran, Russia and China – let alone terror groups – that violence pays. The increased likelihood of wars abroad and terrorism at home will cost British lives and taxpayers. offered a state and turned it down. That is not what they want. They want the removal of Israel.
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
UK foreign minister visits Syria, re-establishes ties
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has received UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy in Damascus, marking the first visit by a senior United Kingdom official to Syria since diplomatic ties were severed more than a decade ago. According to a statement from the Syrian presidency, the meeting was attended by Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani and focused on bilateral relations and ways to strengthen co-operation between the two countries. The discussions also touched on regional and international developments. European countries have been slowly resetting their approach to Syria since insurgent forces led by the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ousted Bashar al-Assad as president in December following more than 13 years of war. Today in Damascus I met with President Al-Sharaa and FM @AsaadHShaibani. I welcomed progress made and stressed the need for an inclusive and representative political UK stands ready to support the new Syrian Government. — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) July 5, 2025 In a separate session, Foreign Minister al-Shibani held an extended meeting with Lammy to discuss enhancing political dialogue and co-operation across various areas of mutual interest. Lammy discussed discuss bilateral co-operation, political transition and regional security and emphasised UK support for Syria's reconstruction, inclusive governance and justice for victims of the former regime, according to a statement issued by the UK Foreign Office. The UK also announced new funding, including £2 million ($A4.2 million) to support the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in eliminating any remaining chemical weapons in Syria. The UK also pledged £94.5 million in humanitarian and development aid to support Syrian livelihoods, education and countries hosting Syrian refugees. Lammy also met with Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets) teams and women-led businesses supported by UK aid programs. A stable Syria is in the UK's interest, he said. The UK suspended its diplomatic relations with Syria in mid-2012 following the escalation of anti-government protests and civil unrest. with Reuters
Daily Mail
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
David Lammy ducks over whether UK supports US bombing of Iran... as he claims the government was NOT given legal advice on joining action
ducked today on whether the UK supports US bombing of Iran - as he insisted the government has not received any legal advice. The Foreign Secretary urged Tehran to 'take the off ramp' of negotiations as he made a statement in the Commons on the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East. But he faced pressure from MPs over the lack of a 'clear position' from the government. Ministers are maintaining that preventing Iran getting a nuclear weapon was the right thing to do, without endorsing military action. In the Commons, Mr Lammy said the UK did not have any legal advice from Attorney General Lord Hermer. That is despite claims the peer had cautioned that Britain should only be involved in defensive operations. He also confirmed America did not request to use the Diego Garcia base as a staging post for the strikes. 'They did not seek that advice,' he said. Mr Lammy said the situation 'represents serious risk to British assets in the region', telling Tehran: 'We are prepared to defend our personnel.' He argued that military action could not be a permanent solution because Iran had the expertise to enrich uranium. 'That knowledge is not lost… it is the stepping stone to a nuclear weapon,' he said. Earlier, No10 denied Keir Starmer has been made to look a 'chump' by Mr Trump over the Iran crisis. The PM and president spoke last night after the US strikes on Tehran's nuclear sites. But Downing Street 's readout notably did not include any reference to the 'de-escalation' Sir Keir has been urging in other statements. Instead the leaders apparently agreed Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and should return to negotiations. Soon after the call Mr Trump took to social media suggesting regime change - swiping that it could be time to 'Make Iran Great Again'. The stance raises fresh questions about Sir Keir's influence and the health of the Special Relationship. After meeting Mr Trump in person at the G7 in Canada last week, the premier had insisted he did not believe the US would go ahead with the attacks. In other developments today: The first 63 Brits have been airlifted out of Israel, as citizens in Qatar were urged to take shelter; Mr Lammy said he was 'confident' the US was not seeking 'regime change' despite Mr Trump's remarks; Iran is threatening to shut the crucial Strait of Hormuz, with alarm that could cause a spike in the price of oil; The UK and other US allies are braced for potential retaliation attacks by Iran, which has flagged 'heavy consequences'; Russia has warned that Mr Trump could have opened 'Pandora's Box' in the Middle East; Questions have been raised over whether Mr Trump will attend a Nato summit in Brussels starting tomorrow evening. Ministers again refused to say explicitly this morning whether Britain supported the action taken by the US. Challenged at a briefing that Sir Keir was being made to look silly, the PM's spokesman said the leaders had 'an excellent relationship'. 'My answer to that is he acknowledges that it is a very fast-moving situation, he has an excellent relationship with President Trump, as detailed at the G7 last week when the President spoke about the strength of that relationship, but it is a fast-moving situation,' the spokesman said. 'The Prime Minister has been consistent that de-escalation and diplomacy for him is the order of the day.' America did not ask to use the Diego Garcia base for the bombing raid, amid speculation that Attorney General Lord Hermer had advised UK participation would be illegal. Mr Trump took to his Truth Social site in the early hours this morning to post satellite images that he claimed showed Iranian nuclear facilities were 'obliterated'. He said: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, ''Regime Change,'' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Asked about Mr Trump's posts, Mr Lammy said: 'There will be further tweets on many issues over the next three-and-a-half years of Donald Trump's leadership that you will be discussing… the rhetoric is strong but actually I can tell you, having spoken to the Secretary of State, having sat in the White House, that this is targeted action to deal with Iran's nuclear capability.' He added: 'I'm very conscious that when I met colleagues in the White House on Thursday that they were considering all of the options… we knew that, you knew that as journalists. And Donald Trump made a decision to act to degrade that capability. It may well have set back Iran by several years. That was a decision that he took.' Pressed on the legitimacy of the strikes, Mr Lammy said: 'Well, we weren't involved, it's for the Americans to discuss those issues.' In a readout of the call after B-2 stealth bombers and a salvo of submarine-launched missiles hit Iran's nuclear facilities, Downing Street said: 'The leaders discussed the situation in the Middle East and reiterated the grave risk posed by Iran's nuclear programme to international security. 'They discussed the actions taken by the United States last night to reduce the threat and agreed that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. 'They discussed the need for Iran to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and to make progress on a lasting settlement. 'They agreed to stay in close contact in the coming days.' Earlier, Sir Keir said there was a 'risk of escalation'. 'That's a risk to the region. It's a risk beyond the region, and that's why all our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear programme,' he said. There are fears British forces could be dragged into the conflict if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders a retaliation. Speaking to reporters at his Chequers country retreat, Sir Keir would not be drawn on whether Nato's mutual defence pact would apply if US forces were targeted. The PM said 'we have taken all necessary measures to protect UK interests, UK personnel and to work with our allies to protect their interests as well'. Extra RAF Typhoon jets have already been moved to the region and Defence Secretary John Healey said 'force protection is at its highest level' following the US strikes. On a day of intense diplomatic activity, Sir Keir also held calls with the Sultan of Oman, the King of Jordan, Canada's Mark Carney and European counterparts Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz. Ministers from the E3 – the UK, France and Germany – had been involved in talks with Iran as recently as Friday as European allies sought to avoid further escalation in the Middle East. In a joint statement with the French president and German chancellor, Sir Keir said: 'We urge Iran not to take any further action that could destabilise the region.' Mr Lammy spoke to his Iranian and Israeli counterparts 'to stress the need for de-escalation'. 'I urged a diplomatic, negotiated solution to end this crisis,' he said. The Foreign Office dismissed as 'inaccurate' a report by Iran's IRNA news agency that Mr Lammy 'expressed regret' over the US strikes. Mr Lammy also spoke to US secretary of state Marco Rubio and the foreign ministers of Egypt and Cyprus. Touring broadcast studios today ahead of making a statement to MPs later, the Foreign Secretary said it would be a 'catastrophic mistake' for Tehran to fire at US bases in the region. He told BBC Breakfast: It would be a mistake to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.' Mr Lammy said he thinks his Iranian counterpart 'gets that and understands that'. 'Let's take the diplomatic off-ramp. Let's get serious and calm this thing down,' he said. Kemi Badenoch accused ministers of having no 'moral clarity' over the Israel-Iran conflict. Speaking at a Policy Exchange event in central London, the Conservative leader said: 'With regards to the Government, I think there is a complete absence of moral clarity and, in fact, moral courage. 'They are repeating the sort of standard lines that are written by officials, which are designed to not upset anybody and not give any views or any information: 'we want to see a de-escalation', just sort of 'motherhood and apple pie'. 'I do think it is quite extraordinary the position they found themselves in where the Foreign Secretary is unable to say whether or not he believes that the action was lawful. It's a completely preposterous situation, because if there's a counter-attack from Iran, they will probably come out and say that it is lawful. They clearly don't think it's lawful, because if they did, they would have come out and said so.' Mrs Badenoch also hit out at Lord Hermer's 'pronouncements' over the legality of strikes on Iran, adding: 'I found watching him just quite illuminating in terms of understanding what kind of Government it is that we have. It is legal fetishism, I think is probably a good way to describe it.' She added: 'Whereas we know that the rule of law does not mean that a particular law is in and of itself good or bad, they're unable to talk about the morality of things and the fact that it looks like they are in this position because of what Lord Hermer says, in my view, makes his position really untenable.' The US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. The Tehran regime has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful but its uranium enrichment process has gone far beyond what is required for power stations. Former UK national security adviser Lord Ricketts highlighted that Sir Keir had not endorsed the 'means' used by the US Asked during a round of interviews this morning whether Britain endorsed the military action taken over the weekend, defence minister Luke Pollard told Times Radio: 'That was a decision that the US has taken. Our focus has been on the diplomatic effort that is necessary to get a lasting peace. 'That's why that's been the focus of the Prime Minister's actions over the last few days, it's why the Defence Secretary, myself, the Foreign Secretary and the minister for the Middle East have been engaging in diplomatic activity in the region, because we need to make sure that there is a route to a lasting peace here. 'The way to do that is with a diplomatic solution that brings Iran back to the negotiating table.' In contrast, shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said he backed the US action. 'We support what's happened, and obviously now need to see what happens next. There is a big question about the Prime Minister's position. It's just not clear what he actually thinks of the attacks,' he said. 'If you look at the language he's talking about recognising the action has happened, that he's spoken to the president, [but] does he actually support the actual military action? 'Because, let's be clear, lots of people say, lots of politicians in this country, lots of our allies, quite rightly, and it's important that they do. 'They recognise that Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear, a military nuclear program, but at the same time, it's not clear what the action is that they would take to deal with that.'
Daily Mail
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Tories warn Starmer not to 'hide' behind legal advice amid claims Attorney General has been 'restraining' UK from backing Israel
Tories warned Keir Starmer not to 'hide' behind legal advice today amid claims Attorney General Lord Hermer has been 'restraining' the UK from backing Israel. Shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel urged the PM to take the right decision for 'national security' as the Middle East crisis threatens to escalate. Donald Trump is keeping the world guessing about whether he will join Israeli attacks on Tehran's nuclear facilities. Sir Keir has been urging 'de-escalation' and so far UK forces are not thought to have played a direct part in defending Israel from retaliation. However, the premier might be forced to choose amid speculation that B-2 stealth bombers would use the Chagos Islands airbase if they are brought in to target an enrichment plant deep under a mountain. Keir Starmer could have to give the green light for US bombers to use the Diego Garcia military base for strikes on Iran There are concerns that would leave UK assets and personnel facing reprisals, with RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus a potential target. More jets have been moved into the region to bolster security. With the situation on a knife edge, David Lammy will hold talks with the US secretary of state Marco Rubio in Washington later. Lord Hermer, a human rights barrister, is said to have been making the case that the UK should not play a role apart from 'defending our allies'. Despite the UK previously coming to the aid of its ally, Lord Hermer is said to have warned against intervention in the latest conflict, which began on Friday with Israel bombing its long-time enemy. In October, the RAF helped shoot down Iranian missiles fired at Israel in a previous attack. But there has been no British military involvement so far this time. One Whitehall official told The Spectator magazine Lord Hermer, a human rights barrister and stickler for international law, was 'acting as a restraining force'. They said: 'The Attorney General has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.' There is a long-standing convention that the government does not comment on the legal advice it seeks or receives. The Mail has not been able to corroborate the claims. Asked about the alleged advice from Lord Hermer on Times Radio this morning, Dame Priti said: 'Quite frankly, I don't think we can hide behind legal advice at a time of crisis and national security.' After seeing Mr Trump at a G7 summit in Canada earlier this week, Sir Keir insisted that he did not think the US was on the verge of joining the operations against Iran. But the premier convened an emergency Cobra meeting yesterday to take stock of diplomatic efforts and UK support for British nationals in the region. There are claims that Attorney General Lord Hermer has been advising that the UK can only legally take part in military actions to defend allies. Mr Trump told reporters outside the White House he was considering strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. He said: 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Israel and Iran have been exchanging fire for days after Benjamin Netanyahu announced a campaign to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials insist the country's nuclear programme is peaceful, and claim Israel has caused hundreds of civilian casualties. A previous deal to limit Iran's enrichment of uranium was torn up by Mr Trump during his first presidency because he regarded it as too weak. The Israeli military has urged residents to evacuate the area around the Arak heavy water reactor, about 155 miles south west of the capital. Iranian state television said the reactor had been attacked, but had been evacuated and there was 'no radiation danger whatsoever'. The Soroka Medical Centre in Beer Sheba, the main hospital in southern Israel, received 'extensive damage' after being hit by an Iranian missile, according to a spokesperson for the hospital. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected Mr Trump's call for surrender and warned American military involvement would result in 'irreparable damage'.
Bloomberg
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Keir Starmer: ‘We Are Gravely Concerned'
The UK's prime minister is focused on de-escalating the Israel-Iran conflict, and sees a path forward for Ukraine and a US-UK trade deal. By Can the UK help de-escalate, well, everything? Friday morning turned out to be quite a moment to walk through the famous black door of 10 Downing Street — home and workplace of British prime ministers for nearly 300 years — to speak to current occupant Keir Starmer. Israel had attacked Iran a few hours earlier, and so our conversation about the UK's role on the world stage began right there, slotted between Starmer's calls with the leaders of France, Germany and Israel. Starmer has been in power for nearly a year, and has been tested in new ways since Donald Trump returned to the White House. He prides himself on the bond they appear to have forged, though it is in some ways an unlikely one: the New York businessman and the studious former human-rights lawyer. That rapport helped the UK score a win with a trade agreement, which Starmer told me is about to enter into force. Alignment on Ukraine is harder. As Starmer heads to Canada for the G-7, he is trying his utmost to emphasize alliances and shared objectives, even as the evidence highlights their limitations. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Prime Minister, just as you're about to leave for the G-7, Israel carried out what it described as a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear targets: 200 fighter jets, more than 300 bombs, 100 sites struck, including homes. Would you say Israel is justified in the action it's taken? I'm very concerned about the situation. It's obvious that for a long time we've had grave concerns about the nuclear program that Iran is putting together, and we absolutely recognize Israel's right to self-defense. We were not involved in this attack, and we're urging all sides to deescalate and negotiate as the way forward here. In March, US National Intelligence made it public that they did not believe Iran was developing nuclear weapons. 1 Has something changed? On March 26, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' But she also warned that the past year has seen 'an erosion of a decades long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' I won't go into the intelligence assessments, but we are gravely concerned. I've just had a call with President Macron and Chancellor Merz and we are all on the same page. We're all saying de-escalate, but none of us were involved in the actual attack. Does that mean you're also gravely concerned about this very big preemptive military action? I mean, you're concerned about Iran's nuclear program. Are you also concerned about Israel's choice of action? I'm going to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly after this interview, so obviously that'll be a topic of discussion. Look, I do recognize Israel's right to self-defense. But I'm very concerned about the escalation of this situation, which is why, along with Germany and France, we're really clear that de-escalation is what is needed here. Would the UK therefore help defend Israel from Iranian attack as it has done before? 2 When Iran launched a missile and drone attack against Israel in April last year, Britain's Royal Air Force shot down a number of Iranian drones. This is happening in real time as we speak, and I'm not going to go into operational matters. But as I say, the principle of Israel's right to self-defense is absolutely clear, and we stand by that. But this is a fast-moving situation, as you will understand. Listen and follow The Big Take on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts At the same time, we have the ongoing situation in Gaza, the suffering there, something that you have called 'intolerable' and 'appalling.' Three weeks ago, you made this very strong statement 3 with Canada and France, which called for three things: for Hamas to release the hostages, for Israel's military operations in Gaza to cease, and for Israel to let aid into Gaza in accordance with the UN. None of those things have happened. What action will you take now? Starmer has repeatedly supported Israel's right to defend itself following Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023 attacks. But in May, the UK, France and Canada issued a joint statement opposing expanded Israeli operations in Gaza. You'll have seen that we've taken action in relation to sanctions three weeks ago, but also more recently, 4 and it is important that we consider what other options we have. The situation in Gaza is absolutely intolerable. The aid arrangements are not adequate. We've been consistently calling for a return to the ceasefire and, of course, the release of the hostages. We're being very clear in our messaging on this and our coordination on this, and our willingness to take action such as sanctioning. On June 10, the UK sanctioned two Israeli government ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for 'inciting extremist violence' and 'serious abuses of Palestinian human rights.' The move was criticized by the US and Israel. Which you've already done. And as I said, there's been no change to the situation. An action you could take is recognizing a Palestinian state, and President Macron is leading a conference at the UN next week on that very subject. We've got a longstanding policy as the Labour Party that recognition should be part of a process. Precisely what's going to happen in the conference next week, I think, is unclear, and obviously now the immediate issue is the Israeli attack overnight. But the principle we've always held is that the only long-term solution in relation to Palestine and the Middle East is a two-state solution, and although it seems further off now than perhaps it's seemed for some time, we have to be clear that is the only path through. Britain has a historic responsibility, doesn't it, and recognizing a Palestinian state was in your manifesto. Do you want to be the British prime minister who delivers that? Here's an extract from that manifesto pledge: 'Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people... We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution.' We do have a special responsibility. You're absolutely right about that, and our manifesto was clear about our position on recognition. 5 But it must be the appropriate part of the process that will alleviate the situation and bring about meaningful change. Can you see the moment where you might have to do things independently of any process — because there isn't one? Through settlement expansion, the Israeli government is saying openly that it's trying to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Well, that's why we're talking to international partners about what can be done, what should be done, what's the appropriate path, and we'll continue to do that. I strongly believe that we are better, more effective when we're acting with allies, with others at the same time. That's why we took the approach we did on sanctions, and it's the same mindset that I bring to this. Let's turn to Russia. You've worked very hard to help the US administration see Ukraine slightly differently, to push them further towards greater action on Russia. You'll be seeing President Trump at the G-7 summit. Do you understand what he is trying to do on Russia? President Trump wants to bring about an end to the conflict. I have no doubt about that. We are moving closer, I hope, to some sort of ceasefire, some sort of deal. President Zelenskiy has been absolutely clear that he wants an unconditional ceasefire. Putin, in my view, is dragging his heels, which is why I think it is important for us, together with others, to say there will be consequences if Russia doesn't come forward to an unconditional ceasefire. It seemed that you thought you had persuaded President Trump on that when you went to Kyiv. 6 He talked tough for a while about Vladimir Putin, and then stopped. So is he going to pressure Mr. Putin? This was on May 10, when Starmer traveled to Ukraine with three other European leaders who all called President Trump together. After the call, Starmer said, 'Working with President Trump, with all our partners, we will ramp up sanctions and increase our military aid for Ukraine's defense to pressure Russia back to the table.' The path to peace is rarely straightforward, but I do believe that that is what President Trump wants. That is absolutely what the Ukrainians want. This is a war that's been waged on them by the aggressor, which is Russia, and so we are doing everything we can to bring about that outcome. I'm absolutely determined that the UK will play a leading part. Not only is this about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but it is also about our values in Europe, and the direct impact it has back here at home in the United Kingdom. Are you saying you believe that President Trump will bring in sanctions on Russia, new sanctions that might pressure Putin to come to the negotiating table? He said on a number of occasions that's what he would do. He also said he'd end the war in 24 hours. I do believe we're making progress, but it must be a lasting peace. You have led on this idea of the coalition of the willing and a reassurance force for post-war Ukraine. Have you got a commitment from the US that it would provide air cover for that force to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine in the future? The UK government coined the term 'coalition of the willing' after an emergency summit of European leaders following a week of chaotic diplomacy sparked by President Trump's disastrous Oval Office meeting with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy. President Trump has clearly said he'll have our back, and I've always been clear that there must be a US element to this. But on the other hand, I do think that Europe needs to step up. And that's why, along with President Macron, we have led on the coalition of the willing, which is to go at the pace of those that want to go furthest, rather than at the pace of those who are the most cautious. 7 Get the Bloomberg Weekend newsletter. Big ideas and open questions in the fascinating places where finance, life and culture meet. Sign Up By continuing, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Having your back is not the same as saying 'I will provide US air cover.' Bloomberg has been told that the US is refusing to commit to air cover for a post-war force. I'm not going to get into the private discussions that we are having, but what I would say is this, that there are no two countries that act as closely together on defense, security and on intelligence-sharing as the US and the UK. And that aspect of our relationship is as strong today as it's ever been. Would you be prepared to put British troops on the ground as part of a post-war force in Ukraine, if there wasn't US air cover? I've always said there needs to be US protection. So if it's not there, what happens to the post-war force? I have no reason to believe that the US and the UK can't act together as we've done historically for many, many years. There's another live bilateral issue, which is the state of your trade agreement. The timeframe you set for implementing it was two weeks, which would take us to next Wednesday. So will it be implemented in that timeframe? We're in the final stages of implementing now. Is that the same as within the two weeks, by next Wednesday? I'm hoping that we will complete it pretty soon. I mean, it's important that we do, but we're making good progress. There's nothing unexpected in the implementation, and so we haven't got any hiccups or obstacles. 8 This was stronger language than we expected. The signals have been that the steel and aluminum parts of the agreement are proving trickier than the cars element. The US has raised concerns about China's ownership of British Steel, though the UK took effective control of the company in April. Not long after the G-7 summit, you'll have the NATO summit. NATO wants you to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2032, with 3.5% on core defense spending. Will you be committing to that? Let me go through what we've already committed to, which is 2.5% of GDP being spent on defense by 2027-28. I think that's earlier than most people thought and that's the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War, with an ambition then to go to 3% in the next Parliament. 9 This 'ambition' of Starmer's has been a point of contention. Critics have urged him to make a firmer commitment, and this week opposition MPs pointed out that the the government's published spending plans show defense flatlining at 2.6% of GDP between 2027 and the end of the decade, with no sign of ramping up to 3%. There's been criticism that Europe hasn't carried its fair share of the burden. I think that's right. So I've said to European allies, we need to do more on spending, on capability and cooperation. Obviously, the precise wording that will be agreed at NATO is still a matter of some negotiation. Your current ambition is for 3% of GDP to be spent on defense by 2034. So could it be your ambition by the time of this summit to raise that to 3.5%? Because if you don't, you can't really claim to be the leading European nation in NATO. I had Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, here in this room on Monday to discuss how we would go into this summit. He was very clear to me that he welcomed our uplift to 2.5%. It's all good. It's just a long way from what he wants now— Well no, but he also knows that we are— And the US says everyone's going to agree to this within weeks. So if we don't, it's going to be a very difficult summit. We're the only country that commits our nuclear capability to NATO, so I think NATO recognizes that the UK makes a huge contribution and I am absolutely determined that the summit will be a huge success and an opportunity to show the strength that we have as NATO allies, but also to send a very clear message to our adversaries. Finally, let's return to the UK. There are some concerns that the growth picture is not going to support your spending plans. Bloomberg looked into company filings and found that thousands of company directors have relocated out of the UK in the past year. Is this a group of people that you can really afford to lose? Let me put this in the context. We inherited a complete mess at the election. Almost everything was broken — the economy, the public services, you name it. Which is why you raised taxes. We had to take difficult but right decisions in the budget. Year one of this Labour government was to clear up the mess. We're now moving into phase two: Where are you putting your money? And I'm really proud that we're rolling out a program of real saver values in terms of investment. Might an investor visa be something you're considering? I want more investors to come into the country. I want top talent to come into the country. But I would just push back a little because we've had record investment into the UK since the last election. 10 It's unclear what figures Starmer was referring to here. Last October, ministers heralded a 'record' £63 billion ($85 billion) worth of deals secured at a UK investment summit. But critics later said a quarter of the deals had been agreed before Labour took office. The economy's lost about a quarter of a million jobs since autumn. So not all is as rosy as you suggest. We have actually 500,000 more people at work than at the date of the last election. There is a Bloomberg analysis that more than a quarter of a million jobs have been lost. If you look at the number of people in work, it is 500,000 more than it was. If you look at the commitment to spending in the Strategic Defence Review, 11 there's 30,000 jobs in nuclear submarines. [ Investment in the Sizewell C nuclear plant, which] we announced earlier this week, was 10,000 jobs, and my job is to make sure that good, well-paid, secure jobs are there, and to attract that investment. Global investors have a choice as to which country they put their money in. They chose not to put their money into the UK for many years before the election. Now we've had record inward investment. The UK's latest defense review, published earlier this month, includes plans to rebuild weapons stockpiles, expand its nuclear deterrence and invest in submarines and drones. But the harsh reality is Britain's arms industry has shrunk a lot in recent decades. Final thought: Is President Trump coming in September for his state visit? The Palace will organize the dates, but President Trump will be coming for his state visit. Is it this year? I hope so. I'm really pleased that we will be able to showcase the close relationship we have between the UK and the US. And this will be a historic second visit from President Trump 12 — we're all looking forward to welcoming him here. This invitation from King Charles III, handed over with a flourish by Starmer at the White House in February, has gone down very well with the US president. Trump has described the king as a 'beautiful man, wonderful man.' Mishal Husain is Editor at Large for Bloomberg Weekend. She joined Bloomberg from the BBC, where she presented its leading news program Today on BBC Radio 4 for over a decade. More On Bloomberg
