Most people I know were concerned about the prospect of a second Trump presidency; but we did not have a vote. However, those Republicans who elected him should have been mindful of the old Chinese proverb: be careful what you wish for.
A classic example has been provided recently in the columns of the New York Times. On 17 December, the rightwing columnist Bret Stephens wrote: “Here’s a thought for Trump’s perennial critics, including us on the right. Let’s enter the new year … by dropping the lurid comparisons to past dictators, by not sounding paranoid about … the ever-looming end of democracy.”
However, by 20 February, with Trump, JD Vance and Elon Musk already giving full vent to their planned revolution, Mr Stephens was quoting what Joseph Goebbels wrote in April 1928, about five years before Hitler’s ascent to power: “We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons … If democracy is foolish … enough … that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine by us.”
There is plenty to be concerned about, on far too many fronts. The US has to live with the monster it elected; but, unfortunately, so do the rest of us, not least the millions in less fortunate countries who have been dependent on US foreign aid, and the more developed economies that are rightly concerned about the potential impact of Trump’s devotion to tariff wars.
Obviously, it was fear of what Trump was up to, or not, in Ukraine and over the future of Nato that dominated the reporting on Keir Starmer’s much-trumpeted visit to the White House last week. But Starmer had another important concern: the hope that all that stuff about the “special relationship”, Trump’s putative respect for the British monarchy – and, I kid you not, Trump reportedly likes it that Starmer is a “Sir” – would qualify the UK to stay “on the bench” with regard to tariff wars.
It is difficult to believe that Starmer’s hasty announcement of a long-overdue increase in the defence budget was not motivated by a desire to ingratiate himself with Trump; similarly, it was no doubt assumed that financing this via a dramatic reduction in the UK’s foreign aid budget would impress a president who was in the process of doing the same with US aid.
I fear there was another motive too, aimed more at the UK electorate. This disappointing government, which came in expecting to enjoy two terms, is running scared of the Reform party, so many of whose supporters do not like foreign aid or immigration.
Yet, with the economy struggling, and so many employers experiencing a Brexit-induced dearth of EU workers – not necessarily permanent immigrants, but those who used to in effect commute across the Channel to do construction work – the chancellor’s growth programme is in trouble.
So are her fiscal rules. It is on account of an absurd desire to adhere to this self-inflicted burden that the prime minister and chancellor decided to finance an increase in the defence budget by raiding the aid budget. We are told they are afraid of the reaction of the bond markets, but I am prepared to bet that participants in the bond markets would understand the need for a bond issue designated to defence at this time of Putin-induced crisis.
Which brings us to the joint achievement of Putin and Trump in bringing European nations closer together. One hoped that this would be the final nail in the Brexit coffin, but Trump is still trying to divide and rule. With due respect – difficult! – to Trump and his accomplices, Vance and Musk, the EU was not “formed to screw the United States”: its existence, once championed by US politicians of a different class to Trump, is now justified in order not to be screwed by a bizarre alliance of Trump and Putin.
But despite the obvious need for the UK to acknowledge its need for membership of the EU, Trump is still trying to put a spanner in the works. He talked on Friday about a special trade deal with the UK, but this idea has been examined before and such a deal would not be to the UK’s advantage.
Trump, like his dubious friend Putin, was in favour of Brexit, and the game he is playing is not in the UK’s best interests. Unfortunately, in Starmer’s desperation to avoid the 25% tariffs with which Trump is threatening the EU, Starmer is playing into Trump’s hands.
Meanwhile, I have lost count of the number of people I meet who had great hopes of this Labour government but who are now thoroughly disillusioned. Red lines over the EU; cuts in winter fuel payments; the refusal to raise the two-child limit on benefits; and now mean-minded and damaging cuts to overseas aid. O tempora, o mores …
Article by:Source: William Keegan
