Can Starmer keep the peace with Trump while protecting British interests?

Is Keir Starmer’s apparently still strong relationship with Donald Trump a strength or a weakness?

Normally, getting on with the president of the United States, especially one with a similar outlook on the world, is something of an asset, both personally and for the relevant party. But in the case of Trump, whose actions are increasingly at odds with traditional Western values as he abandons long-established conventions and continues to weaken the Atlantic alliance, that asset is becoming a bit of a problem domestically...

Well, most obviously the attack on Venezuela, which was clearly a breach of international law – and the increasingly menacing noises from Trump about why America “needs Greenland”, formally part of Denmark, for reasons of national security. Neither of these things has proved popular within the Labour Party, or indeed with anyone else much.

In addition, there are trade tensions, most recently over the Technology Prosperity Deal and the possibility of Britain importing American produce such as chlorinated chickens and hormone-treated beef (disliked by farmers and many consumers). Plus crucial differences over Ukraine and the Middle East.

It’s tricky. Trump never reacts well to open criticism, and it could be counterproductive for Starmer, a human rights champion who once said that international law was his “lodestar”. He can use his influence with Trump more effectively as a “critical friend” offering counsel in private. But that’s not good enough for his own critics. Those in his party are adding his reluctance to criticise Washington to their list of reasons to ditch him.

Some of his own backbenchers are vocal, even if they make allowances for Trump’s personality. Emily Thornberry, for example, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says of events in Venezuela: “We need to be clearer that this has been a breach of international law and we do not agree that they should have done it.” Agreeing that Britain must “keep a very important ally like America on board”, she adds that “it’s meaningless if we don’t support international law”.

Trying to outflank Starmer to his left, we also find Ed Davey for the Liberal Democrats, and Zack Polanski for the Greens. The SNP have also taken up that side of the argument. Davey, who has long been outspoken about Trump’s excesses, declares: “Keir Starmer should condemn Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela. Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate dictator, but unlawful attacks like this make us all less safe. Trump is giving a green light to the likes of Putin and Xi to attack other countries with impunity.”

Knocking Trump is fertile political territory for Labour’s rivals, because the president is not that loved on this side of the Atlantic, and the very imbalance in power that Starmer has to cope with is resented by many on the left.

Defence and foreign policy are largely subject to the royal prerogative, as exercised by ministers of the crown, rather than taking the form of legislation to be passed by parliament. Nonetheless, if, say, the Lib Dems or the SNP wanted to be mischievous, or assert the rights of the House of Commons (take your pick), they could put down a critical motion for debate that might draw out Labour’s critics and expose the real divisions in the party’s ranks.

The vote probably wouldn’t be won, as the Tories might well not support it and the government still enjoys a landslide majority, but it would make a dent in the prime minister’s authority that he really doesn’t need.

If Trump really did invade Greenland and annex it, then Starmer and his government would be in an impossible position. In such a circumstance, maintaining a publicly restrained stance towards Washington would just look even more ridiculous, but standing up to Trump might only provoke him into vindictiveness towards vital UK interests.