> ABOARD THE PRIME MINISTER’S PLANE TO BEIJING — Keir Starmer rejected his Canadian counterpart’s call for mid-sized countries to band together in the face of unpredictable global powers — and insisted his “common sense” British approach will do just fine.
Same_Kale_3532 on
Well it’s a nothing burger, just a bunch of platitudes while he tries to undo the damage of Brexit without calling it that to the morons that kept voting Tory.
VelvetFurryJustice on
I’ve never seen such a weak and powerless Prime Minister. Starmers speech last week was basically just telling Trump to stop being scary, he can take anything he wants from Europe. Genuinely confusing how there’s a Prime Minister that serves two Nations before his own. He’s the perfect Candidate for a puppet state.
canmoose on
Good to know our strong British connection is met with such flaccidness in the face of threats to our sovereignty. One might even say that Starmer and the UK do not care about Canada.
anony-mousey2020 on
Does he echo Neville Chamberlain, much?
“I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.”
mrwobblez on
Starmer has really shown time and time again that he’s just an empty suit. If pleasing all parties gets the UK anywhere, all the better for them, but I’m not so convinced Trump / EU / China are that easily charmed by a bunch of empty words.
FoxyInTheSnow on
I thought no political party could be as comprehensively fucked as the UK Tories were after 14 years of austerity, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, 4 chancellors in, like, a year… then Labour won a massive majority and pissed it all away in a-year-and-a-half.
Canuck-overseas on
Starmer approval rating in UK: 19%; Carney approval rating in Canada 60%. Enough said.
emptycagenowcorroded on
I don’t even know why Starmer’s in it? What does he even want? Why put himself through all this to get to this position if he’s just not going to do anything at all? I don’t get him
Objectalone on
I didn’t read his comments as a rejection of Carney’s diagnosis. He is walking a line and hoping for the best. The U.K. is not as exposed and vulnerable as Canada. Canada’s situation requires dramatic moves as fast as possible, we can’t afford to walk a line and hope for the best.
Distinct_Source_1539 on
Ugh. The father grovelling before the son.
I know it’s not necessarily helpful to a anthropomorphize nations but in this case,
Ugh
dopeycurve on
Did you guys even read the article? Starmer said nothing no about “no new world order please”. The title of this post is just misleading.
ChimoEngr on
It sounds to me like Starmer is talking about having the UK do more or less what Carney was saying that middle powers should be doing, he’s just refusing to admit why.
Also, I always thought that the UK was a great, not a middle power, so it makes sense that they wouldn’t follow Carney’s plan.
Jaded_Celery_451 on
>”I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.”
A pragmatist would be able to acknowledge the world as it is, rather than wrapping himself in a comfortable delusion. All of the things he listed are one Trump tweet away from being destroyed.
ToryPirate on
Perfidious Albion
That is how the French summed up English foreign policy in the 1800s. Willing to sell out allies when political fortunes changed. Sure, it was pragmatic but it certainly wasn’t honourable. And at its worst moments has amounted to cowardice.
But the difference then was Britain was looking to maintain a balance of power, siding with the weaker powers so no one great power could dominate. Enabling Trump is a clear departure from that long-standing British policy.
shpydar on
The U.K. isn’t a middle power.
Carney never mentioned the U.S. directly in his speech because when he was talking about hegemonies he was talking about them all, not just the U.S. and that includes the U.K.
He was talking to the middle powers about uniting together to collectively deal with the hegemony’s, not fight or come in conflict with them, but to work together to get the best deal with countries like the U.K.
Of course the U.K. Prime Minister doesn’t want the new “World order” Carney is proposing. It would negatively affect the U.K.’s ability to boss around and bully the middle powers individually.
Carney’s speech was as much about dealing with the U.K. as it was about the U.S., China and India.
Nate33322 on
Is anyone surprised? Starmer has been taking a pretty weak if not subservient stance to Trump for the entirety of his prime ministership. The British government won’t be coming to our aid. This just a continuation of a fairly spineless British foreign policy with the Trump Administration.
Also yes we have deep historic ties (and share a King who at least seems to be all in on supporting Canada), but we can’t rely on those historic connections anymore. Rightly or wrongly since the end of the Second World War the majority of our governments have been actively moving our cultural and political ties away from Britain at every turn while militarily we refused to actively support them in wars like the Suez Crisis and the Falklands. Meaning our once deep connection isn’t really there anymore and thus we can’t depend on that connection to automatically make the British back Canada.
17 Comments
> ABOARD THE PRIME MINISTER’S PLANE TO BEIJING — Keir Starmer rejected his Canadian counterpart’s call for mid-sized countries to band together in the face of unpredictable global powers — and insisted his “common sense” British approach will do just fine.
Well it’s a nothing burger, just a bunch of platitudes while he tries to undo the damage of Brexit without calling it that to the morons that kept voting Tory.
I’ve never seen such a weak and powerless Prime Minister. Starmers speech last week was basically just telling Trump to stop being scary, he can take anything he wants from Europe. Genuinely confusing how there’s a Prime Minister that serves two Nations before his own. He’s the perfect Candidate for a puppet state.
Good to know our strong British connection is met with such flaccidness in the face of threats to our sovereignty. One might even say that Starmer and the UK do not care about Canada.
Does he echo Neville Chamberlain, much?
“I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.”
Starmer has really shown time and time again that he’s just an empty suit. If pleasing all parties gets the UK anywhere, all the better for them, but I’m not so convinced Trump / EU / China are that easily charmed by a bunch of empty words.
I thought no political party could be as comprehensively fucked as the UK Tories were after 14 years of austerity, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, 4 chancellors in, like, a year… then Labour won a massive majority and pissed it all away in a-year-and-a-half.
Starmer approval rating in UK: 19%; Carney approval rating in Canada 60%. Enough said.
I don’t even know why Starmer’s in it? What does he even want? Why put himself through all this to get to this position if he’s just not going to do anything at all? I don’t get him
I didn’t read his comments as a rejection of Carney’s diagnosis. He is walking a line and hoping for the best. The U.K. is not as exposed and vulnerable as Canada. Canada’s situation requires dramatic moves as fast as possible, we can’t afford to walk a line and hope for the best.
Ugh. The father grovelling before the son.
I know it’s not necessarily helpful to a anthropomorphize nations but in this case,
Ugh
Did you guys even read the article? Starmer said nothing no about “no new world order please”. The title of this post is just misleading.
It sounds to me like Starmer is talking about having the UK do more or less what Carney was saying that middle powers should be doing, he’s just refusing to admit why.
Also, I always thought that the UK was a great, not a middle power, so it makes sense that they wouldn’t follow Carney’s plan.
>”I’m a pragmatist, a British pragmatist applying common sense, and therefore I’m pleased that we have a good relationship with the U.S. on defense, security, intelligence and on trade and prosperity,” he says. “It’s very important that we maintain that good relationship.”
A pragmatist would be able to acknowledge the world as it is, rather than wrapping himself in a comfortable delusion. All of the things he listed are one Trump tweet away from being destroyed.
Perfidious Albion
That is how the French summed up English foreign policy in the 1800s. Willing to sell out allies when political fortunes changed. Sure, it was pragmatic but it certainly wasn’t honourable. And at its worst moments has amounted to cowardice.
But the difference then was Britain was looking to maintain a balance of power, siding with the weaker powers so no one great power could dominate. Enabling Trump is a clear departure from that long-standing British policy.
The U.K. isn’t a middle power.
Carney never mentioned the U.S. directly in his speech because when he was talking about hegemonies he was talking about them all, not just the U.S. and that includes the U.K.
He was talking to the middle powers about uniting together to collectively deal with the hegemony’s, not fight or come in conflict with them, but to work together to get the best deal with countries like the U.K.
Of course the U.K. Prime Minister doesn’t want the new “World order” Carney is proposing. It would negatively affect the U.K.’s ability to boss around and bully the middle powers individually.
Carney’s speech was as much about dealing with the U.K. as it was about the U.S., China and India.
Is anyone surprised? Starmer has been taking a pretty weak if not subservient stance to Trump for the entirety of his prime ministership. The British government won’t be coming to our aid. This just a continuation of a fairly spineless British foreign policy with the Trump Administration.
Also yes we have deep historic ties (and share a King who at least seems to be all in on supporting Canada), but we can’t rely on those historic connections anymore. Rightly or wrongly since the end of the Second World War the majority of our governments have been actively moving our cultural and political ties away from Britain at every turn while militarily we refused to actively support them in wars like the Suez Crisis and the Falklands. Meaning our once deep connection isn’t really there anymore and thus we can’t depend on that connection to automatically make the British back Canada.