I have spoken publicly many times about Britain’s relationship with the United States in recent months, an increasingly capricious ally which has been generating continual waves of global instability since President Trump returned to office over a year ago.
This is a complex issue that deserves detailed thought and attention. As such, I wrote the below in reply to a constituent concerned about the health of the “Special Relationship”, sharing my thoughts on the inevitable impact that events abroad have on the constituency, the myriad ways we depend on the US, and the arguments for closer European cooperation.
There is less direct focus on the Iran War, which I have already covered in a full response elsewhere on this website.
Thoughts on the “Special Relationship”
Events abroad are often the root cause of the most consequential issues for my constituents in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr.
Recent years have made this clear: Covid-19, the energy shock following the war in Ukraine, and now a similar shock following the US/Israeli attack on Iran.
As I wrote in a post in January, “my first concern is always what is happening inside Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, as you would expect. But because events outside the constituency inevitably have an impact within it, that means you have to worry about much more than your local patch, even if it would be simpler to pretend otherwise.” These are not only high-level diplomatic issues, they affect everyone.
In truth, backbench MPs like myself have very few formal foreign policy powers, perhaps with the exception of those sitting on relevant select committees and – to a lesser extent – those on All–Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs), and of course on voting on some legislation relating to defence expenditure and so on.
Yet I am aware of the deep privilege that I hold as a Member of Parliament, my voice is louder and is carried farther than most. This is the reason I do not shy away from sharing my opinion on foreign affairs publicly. It would be an abdication of responsibility not to and my constituents deserve to know what I really think on any matter.
Below, I will outline my own views on the transatlantic relationship. Firstly, let me outline my appraisal of the UK Government’s stance on US-UK ties.
Since its election, I believe the government has sacrificed a lot of political capital in appeasing President Trump with the aim of protecting the “Special Relationship”.
In negotiating a carve-out from the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, in declining to criticise the US capture of Maduro, in refusing to commit to joint retaliatory tariffs with EU allies during the Greenland crisis, in offering an unprecedented second state visit to Trump, it has often moved in the opposite direction to public opinion in seeking to maintain close ties with the current US administration.
I believe the government has been doing its best to preserve the transatlantic relationship, to the chagrin of many Labour MPs and some European allies. Still now, the Prime Minister refuses to trade barbs with the President despite plenty coming from the White House.
This is before one considers how much work is done behind the scenes by the government, by the Foreign Office, by the entire civil service, and indeed by the wider defence, security, and intelligence establishment to keep day-to-day cooperation as frictionless as possible.
The government’s rhetoric is necessarily more bound than mine. As I state above, I believe it has taken the necessary steps to protect short-term national security interests, while refusing to join offensive operations in what the government’s legal advice considers to be in contravention of international law and our obligations under it.
My personal view is that long-term reliance on the US will not make our country nor our constituency safer. I see it as my role, then, to advocate publicly for a sober reassessment of our foreign policy that I believe would make us safer in the long-term.
I believe the US has become an unreliable ally, is acutely threatening British interests, and the only sensible response is to pursue a closer relationship with the European Union – economically, diplomatically, and militarily.
This would allow us to pursue a foreign policy that seeks to make the world safer, not more dangerous, that would allow comparatively small European countries a greater say on world events than would otherwise be the case, that would allow us to better protect our interests, increasingly divergent from the US.
Reduced trade barriers with our largest and nearest trading partner would contribute significantly to economic growth, too, and be a benefit for my farming constituents, with 75% of Welsh food and drink exports going to the European Union.
A closer relationship with the EU need not be mutually exclusive with continued intelligence and defence cooperation with the US, unless the US wishes otherwise. Indeed, this was the case prior to 2016, when the “Special Relationship” was based on mutual respect and joint interests, and we had EU membership.
No one who thinks seriously about national security believes reducing our dependence on the US security umbrella would be easy or without risks. I am alive to the depth of our reliance in as many realms as you care to mention: intelligence cooperation, satellite capability, military equipment, bilateral trade, the interdependence of our financial sectors, cloud computing, information technology, artificial intelligence, even our nuclear deterrent is reliant (at least) on US maintenance. The list goes on; it is a sobering one.
To me, this is not a reason against working to reduce that reliance. It would be difficult, but I believe this work must be started. Blind hope that the US will continue to commit as unwaveringly to European defence as it has since 1945 is not a foreign policy strategy, it is complacency. All the signs – not least the repeated and overt statements from US officials themselves, decrying the opposite is true.
You may disagree, but I am of the opinion that it is not Britain that is jeopardising the “Special Relationship”, but the US. It was the US that decided to levy tariffs on British exports last April, causing harm to our economy.
The US threat in January of this year to apply a 25% tariff on British exports during the Greenland crisis, on top of the 10% ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, could have cost the economy nearly £22 billion while hitting growth badly enough to push us into a recession. The threats were thankfully withdrawn, likely largely due to the EU preparing retaliatory tariffs.
It was the US that did huge damage to transatlantic security by threatening to annex NATO territory. It is the US, too, that is contributing to global instability through threats to other sovereign nations – only this year including, but not limited to: Colombia; Cuba; Canada; Mexico; Greenland; Denmark; Norway; Sweden; France; Germany; the Netherlands; Spain; Finland; and of course Venezuela and Iran.
The safety of constituents is the top priority of every Member of Parliament, as the safety of the country is the top priority for any government. I believe the government is acting to protect our short-term national interests, while neglecting long-term national interests.
I believe these need not be mutually exclusive. In my view, the government should attempt to maintain defence and security cooperation with the US while taking steps to reduce reliance, while increasing cooperation with the EU.