Episode Info
- Season25
- Episode5
Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Marina Purkiss
Marina Purkiss is a popular left-wing figure and co-host of 'The Trawl' podcast discussing what a Labour government takeover led by Sir Keir Starmer would mean for British foreign policy.
Episode Summary
The Conservative Party is on track to see fourteen years in power end, when the United Kingdom votes next month. A popular left-wing figure and co-host of The Trawl podcast Marina Purkiss discusses with One Decision's resident spymaster and Conservative figure Sir Richard Dearlove what a Labour government takeover led by Sir Keir Starmer would mean for the future of British foreign policy. Richard and Marina debate whether the UK is more secure under Labour or Conservative party rule, the controversial Rwanda policy, relations with the United States if Donald Trump is reelected president, and how far-right election victories across Europe will impact security and holding the line for Ukraine against Russia's aggression. Plus, Sir Richard on what Keir Starmer should have on his agenda for his first day at No. 10 Downing Street.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Perkus: You're listening to One Decision, the podcast that looks at the choices that shape our world. I'm your host, Marina Perkus, and I'm joined by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of Britain's MI6. Each week, we explore some of the biggest choices and issues that have global impact. We hear from the key players and influencers making, informing, and shaping the decisions that affect us all. So with the polls predicting conservative wipeout at the general election, we wanted to talk about what this means for the future of British foreign policy. I do want to note that Sir Richard and I had this conversation before Sunday's EU parliament vote and the swing to the right that triggered political chaos in France with Marine Le Pen's anti-immigration national rally party securing more than 31% of the vote, which prompted President Emmanuel Macron to call snap parliamentary elections. But back to the UK. We've had fourteen years of the Tories calling the shots, driving what some would say is a quite hard-headed approach to foreign diplomacy. And, of course, they got their Brexit done. So if we are to see a Labour, Keir Starmer government, what's going to be different when they get their feet under the table at number 10?
INTERVIEW
Dearlove: On the face of it, not a great deal in foreign policy. I mean, there are not going to be massive apparent shifts, let's say in the early months. But that's not to say that there aren't clear distinctions and they're beginning I think to emerge. And for example, I mean the most obvious one is on immigration policy in Rwanda. But you know I'm not sure that that really is a foreign policy issue. It's almost a domestic issue but it's a mixture of the two. It is. But I mean clearly Rwanda is one area. And then of course Starmer has said very clearly that he would like a better relationship with the European Union. Now what he exactly means by that, I'm not sure and he hasn't articulated it.
Perkus: Deliberately so. So it has to be of course.
Dearlove: On that I agree with you. You don't start negotiating before you're in the negotiating room. And there are certain background reasons in my view why it's actually in the EU's interest to have a different sort of relationship with the UK because the Brexit negotiations ended really in a pretty bad-tempered standoff. And in fact, you know, if Brexit had been in my view properly negotiated, the EU would have understood and the UK would have understood that we can have a close relationship with the EU but not be a member of it. And I think in a way, if you look at the historical view of the UK's relationship with Europe, that's probably in the longer term, a more natural place for the UK to be.
Perkus: Rishi Sunak gave a speech on national economic and energy security, saying that the Conservatives are the only party that could be trusted to deliver that, which personally, I found a bit strange or a bit rich coming from, you know, a party who have overseen or turned a blind eye seemingly to Russian interference, who have, you know, have numerous cyberattacks. Goodness me. There's been WhatsApps that are lost. So I'm not sure I believe that line from Sunak. What do you think of that? Do you think Conservatives need to be in government for the security of the country?
Dearlove: Well, I think if you look at the historic record of both parties, both have quite strong records on security. Obviously there have been aberrations and I don't think it's easy to say one party is better than the other. I think what worries a lot of professionals and okay I count myself partly as a foreign policy professional is that there has been a significant nuclear disarmament factor in the Labour Party which is prominent. Seven members of the current front bench have in the past said that you know they are nuclear disarmers. So they want to get rid of our deterrent. Now personally, I think that is a big issue and a serious issue, and you don't have that element in the Conservative Party. So that's probably the only area in which one could define a significant difference on security. Obviously, in the current crisis, I mean, a security crisis in Europe, both parties are going to try to define their security credentials. And I mean, have done it. I mean, Starmer has done it, Sunak has done it. The difference between them is we actually have a clear commitment from the Conservatives to spend 2.5% of GDP on defense. All we have from the Labour Party at the moment, which worries me, is we will spend that when we can afford it. Well, it's better than nothing, but what does when we can afford it actually mean? I mean, I'm certainly of the view, I mean, I would take quite a strong view that national security and defence spending is actually more important than the National Health Service. But then, you know, I understand well that that is not the average view of the voter. But I mean I'll tell you one thing that if Labour do win, when they probably will win this election, they're going to have to significantly increase the size of the armed forces. Now how are they going to do that? How are they going to do that? Because that will be almost—
Perkus: They'll have to properly fund it, of course. But also the armed forces are at their most depleted, I believe. They are the most depleted since the Napoleonic War. They are the smallest.
Dearlove: But, you know, that's a slightly spurious argument given that modern technology does compensate for numbers in certain cases.
Perkus: Let's explore further how a Labour government would impact foreign policy. So let's say, heaven forbid, Trump gets a second term. How does Keir Starmer respond to that?
Dearlove: He has to deal with the elected president of the United States. I really don't think that, you know, we can, at this point, make an issue of saying, well, we're gonna dislike this man. I mean, if he's elected president and remember, this is not a fact. It's a risk. And I think it's a diminishing risk, actually. I don't feel as optimistic as you. Well, maybe. I mean, it's difficult to say. I can show you some of the stuff I've recently received from the States. It does make a difference to a lot of American voters that he's a felon. And it clearly makes a difference to him. You know, he's saying it doesn't make any difference, but clearly, it did because he tried so hard to avoid a situation where he would be a felon before the election. And I think, you know, there are an awful lot of middle voters who are going to be put off by this. Whether it counts in the key swing states is the issue, but I'm feeling a little bit more, not a lot more optimistic that he's gonna have an uphill task to win the presidential election. If he does win, he's the elected president. If Corbyn had been prime minister, he would have been the elected president. How would the Americans have dealt with him? If you see what I mean because they had great reservations about him because of who he was, who he represented, and what his track record was. So I mean this happens all the time in politics. It doesn't normally happen you know in a relationship as important as the one between the US and the UK. But I don't think Starmer will have any option. I think he knows that already.
Perkus: I think there could be some awkward moments for David Lammy because he's made some quite spicy comments about—well, I think they likened him to the—or he said he has had Ku Klux Klan affiliation or something along those lines.
Dearlove: No. No. I mean, I'm not gonna make a judgment of David Lammy until he's foreign secretary and see what he does. I mean he has a track record of saying some pretty stupid things, that's all I will say, of which I think he's considerably embarrassed and tries to gloss it over in his past. But maybe he'll make a good foreign secretary, we just don't know. But he's pretty damned inexperienced.
Perkus: You could say the same for the Conservative foreign secretary. Well, he's very experienced, not a very good one. But I express my views about that. Lord Cameron of Greensill, as I like to call him. Okay. Let's go beyond US. So we're gonna be seeing multiple transitions in power this year. Massive number of elections. Globally. So given the recent elections in South Africa, Mexico, and India, how is this all going to impact our geopolitical climate? Let's start with South Africa. Because the ANC lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since apartheid. They managed to cling on to only 40% of the vote, and they now need to find a coalition partner.
Dearlove: Well, I'm very pleased personally to see ANC get their democratic comeuppance because they've, you know, presumed to dominate South African politics in a manner where there should never be any serious opposition. Well, times have changed. Unfortunately, you know, the two split-off ANC parties, Malema and Zuma, are not particularly reputable either of them. And it would be worrying, I think if the ANC goes back into alliance either with Malema or with Zuma but then the alternative is that whatever the other group is called, the centrist group, the Democratic Alliance I think it's called. I don't know. I think, you know, South Africa faces—I mean, its economy is in a mess. A 2% unemployment. It's terrible. And the ANC have really failed. And, of course, that's why they've effectively lost this election. So let's see how the situation unfolds. I mean they are an important, hugely important player you know in the sort of developed developing world and in the sort of southern global arc, they are effectively the African superpower. So they have a lot of moral influence over other African countries. And I think actually Sir Ramaphosa is an admirable individual, but he hasn't really been a very successful leader. I mean, what the UK's relationship will be, I think it's hard to say. I don't see our policy on South Africa essentially changing very much. I mean, whatever government comes in, we'll have to deal with. But I mean, Ramaphosa is gonna have to build a coalition, and it's not clear how he's gonna do it.
Perkus: Do you think there's gonna be any repercussions of what's going on in South Africa on the war in Ukraine and also Israel Gaza?
Dearlove: Not really. I mean, not particularly. And the only thing is that South Africa have led on this ICJ case in relation to Gaza. So, yeah, I mean, there is some resonance because of that. On Ukraine, I don't think at the moment they're particularly significant influence or a significant player. They could be an influence on the Gaza issue, yes.
Perkus: Okay. And let's move on to Mexico. So Mexico have now elected Claudia Sheinbaum, who I'm quite liking the sound of. She is Mexico's first female president. She's a climate scientist with a PhD, Nobel Prize. She's a feminist. She's a leftist. She's a pro-Palestinian Jew. So what impact is this gonna have?
Dearlove: Quite frankly, the UK's relations with Mexico are reasonably good. It's a peripheral interest for the UK. It's really crucial to the United—
Perkus: I was gonna say, how's Trump—again, maybe I'm being pessimistic and I'm thinking Trump's gonna get in. How does he deal? I mean, their neighbors. How does he deal with someone like—
Dearlove: Well, I mean, she's clearly conducted a very good campaign. You know, she's a protégé of her predecessor whose social program has clearly been a big deal. But I mean Mexico's problems are massive. There's a certain amount of social endorsement of her as a political candidate. But you know, I mean Mexico, I don't like to say it but it's almost like a sort of aircraft carrier for crime. And okay you can say that the driver of crime is the demand for drugs in the United States and it's the United States' responsibility to reduce that demand which it is. But the situation in Mexico is pretty parlous and I, you know, it would be great if she can make progress on sorting that out. I think her initial appearances politically she seems very impressive and like you I think one could be rather enthusiastic about her arrival in power. It's definitely welcome arrival. She's clearly intelligent, she's very fluent, she's impressive.
Perkus: She's got a job on her hands. Goodness. I was reading that there were nearly 30,000 assassinations of political candidates and journalists in a year. It's absolutely horrendous.
Dearlove: And I mean, you know, one country I wouldn't go to at the moment because it's too dangerous is Mexico. I'm sure you could find yourself a nice five-star resort that was gated. But, you know, does someone want to go to a five-star resort in Mexico and not me? True.
Perkus: Well, let's hop over to India instead. So in India, Modi's alliance in the elections fell short of winning the majority in parliament, which now leaves him in a weakened position. Terrific news. Terrific. Why is it terrific?
Dearlove: Because it means that democracy and the world's largest democracy works and works well. And it means that Modi cannot pursue in this ruthless fashion a pretty exclusive nationalist policy which has all sorts of side effects and knock-ons which are highly undesirable for India's future. Sort of exaggerating the division in India between Hindu and Muslim by being an aggressively Hindu party, he'll have to compromise and he'll have to have a coalition and that coalition will it include part of the Congress party. I don't know enough about the detail of politics. But all it can do actually is make India an easier partner because Modi was I think quite difficult. A lot of countries like the UK had a close relationship with him but had to somewhat grit their teeth when it came down to, you know, judgment of what actually was going on internally in India. I think it'll make him a more compliant partner, maybe put it like that. And I mean, India is strategically important because of AUKUS. So, you know, expect AUKUS I think to expand to have some sort of relationship with India and some sort of relationship with Japan. It's going to become I think very important in terms of—I'm reluctant to use the word of saying containing China strategically because the Chinese wouldn't like that concept. But at least it creates an alliance of interest in terms of looking at China as a rather aggressive expansionist power.
Perkus: Do you think this is going to impact Modi's ability to compete with China?
Dearlove: No. I think, you know, if India's credentials of democracy are strengthened, it makes India in some respects a more formidable opponent to China. So I would look on this pretty positively, actually.
Perkus: What about our trade deal? Because it's been in the works, isn't it? The UK-India trade deal. Any impact on that at all? I've got a theory on this, by the way. My theory is that the reason Sunak is clinging on for dear life, even when clearly the majority of the country doesn't want him in that position, is I think the win there is for him to help secure that trade deal before he buggers off to Miami or wherever it is, California. Says he's not gonna do that. I could shake your hand right now and do a bet that he will do that. He will reinstate his green card and they will be out of here.
Dearlove: Well, maybe. But I think that would be extremely disappointing if that's—I think it would be extremely disappointing if that's what happened. Well, I think there are two trade deals, you know, which are crucial to the UK at the moment. One is India and one is United States. And of course the irony is that if Trump gets elected we'll almost certainly get our trade deal very quickly. He's already said so. He's made absolutely—with Starmer—it won't make any difference. You don't think so? No. So the irony is that, you know, because Biden is economically no friend of the United Kingdom, really. So, you know, there is an upside to Trump being elected for the UK.
Perkus: I thought Biden's position and his sort of aloofness was because of the Conservative government, because of his ties to Ireland and what happened during Brexit in the way that Northern Ireland was treated.
Dearlove: Well, I mean, you know, Biden's Irishness is a bit of a myth. He's just as English as he is Irish in terms of his antecedents. He just happened to choose his Irish antecedents because Americans like it. So it's a good debate whether. But, you know, let's be absolutely clear.
Perkus: Maybe I'm certain enough on this issue. Also, if Trump is gonna be in power, Trump does things for Trump. I can't see him negotiating a trade deal where it's a big win for the UK.
Dearlove: If he gets elected, I'm prepared to take a bet with you that there will be a quick, relatively quick trade deal with the UK. Quick. Yes. I think it'll be quite—it'll be ready. Better than Australia? No. It'll be a decent deal. Just don't get Liz Truss on it.
Perkus: Let's move on to the conflict in the Middle East. What do you think Keir Starmer's position is going to be? Is there gonna be a marked shift in the UK's policy when it comes to our stance towards Israel Gaza?
Dearlove: Probably not. I don't think it's gonna shift. I mean, I wouldn't mind that we're not a primary player. The United States is really calling the shots. Our relationship with Israel has always been quite angular and quite awkward whether it's a Conservative government or a Labour government. Behind the scenes it's not straightforward. I think that Starmer will not significantly change his ground. It really depends on whether the latest American initiative to press for a ceasefire, which will develop into a broader agreement goes in. If it does, the UK will support that strongly. But I mean, I can't see Starmer in government being the catalyst for any more ambitious initiative. We're a follower rather than a maker of policy on this issue.
Perkus: Starmer and Lammy have come out and said they respect the ruling of the ICC regarding Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas being treated as—
Dearlove: Yeah, well I'm not surprised. I mean this is another issue which I think is important. Labour are much more inclined to let's say rights-based diplomacy and membership of ICC or ECHR. I mean, this has very much been the pattern of British foreign policy, both Conservative and Labour, for a long period of time. And in my view, that beneath the surface is changing. And what I mean by that is that the power of the nation state is becoming a much more important factor in international diplomacy than rights-based agreements which are not respected by China, by Iran, by states that are—you know, states that don't combine. I'm not saying that we're gonna dump them, but I think the future of British foreign policy is going to swing towards a realization and understanding. But we have as a country huge soft power. We're still—declining soft power. Yeah, declining. But actually interestingly the Henry Jackson Society did a very interesting study about a year or two ago in which you know we rated very very high globally. It was a global paper on soft power. And okay it's declining but it's still there very very strongly on all sorts of issues. You know whether it's linguistic or whether it's common law or whether it's technology. I mean there are all sorts of areas you know, all the traditions of democracy, are all sorts of reasons why that is still a sort of strong element.
Perkus: So rights-based. When you speak about that, you're talking about things like the European Convention on Human—so there's a clear dividing line between Labour and—well, we discovered last night.
Dearlove: No, I don't think it's a clear dividing line because actually it's an issue that divides the Conservative Party. There's a big chunk of the Conservative Party that are opposed to leaving ECHR. And I was quite surprised in the debate when Rishi Sunak said quite clearly that he would leave if it was a question of putting the interests of the country first. And I think actually it's indicative of a trend and that trend I think is going to become more pronounced even under a Labour government. There's going to be a realization that hard power is important. It's going to be particularly important in terms of European security now.
Perkus: What do you mean by hard power? I mean building up our armed forces and taking a clearer stance on certain issues. But where does the ECHR come into that? Because are you pro the ECHR, or do you think it's outdated?
Dearlove: I think ECHR is absolutely spurious to the UK's interests. We have a perfectly established tradition of common law. Why do we submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of a foreign court?
Perkus: Because it always works. Because you need sometimes there to be an arbiter that goes higher than that. If you look at the Hillsborough disaster, those victims seeking that justice, if it were not for the ECHR, they would not have made the progress that they—
Dearlove: That's not entirely true, but I'm not gonna argue the point because the judge that conducted that came out very clearly in the inquiry that it could have been resolved under common law anyway.
Perkus: If the state comes for us, where do we go? And especially when you see—you have habeas corpus, you have all the traditions of common law that protect the rights of the individual. The ECHR has got Churchill's fingerprints on it. It was set up to make sure that what happened in 1930s, 1940s never happens again. And actually, the reason for exiting it, as Sunak would have us do, to basically be able to violate the rights of people coming over here to seek asylum, that to me doesn't feel spurious to what this country should be striving to achieve. It's probably the point at which we disagree.
Dearlove: I accept at the moment I'm in a minority on this issue, but I think over time the attitude of the country is probably going to change quite a bit. So you are pro-Rwanda policy? I am not particularly enthusiastic about Rwanda policy. I'm enthusiastic about having a realistic solution to the problems of immigration. And at the moment, it's very, very difficult for anyone to come up with a solution to as it were prevent illegal immigration. Legal immigration fine, it's obviously essential to the economy, I have no problem with that at all. Illegal immigration is hugely problematic across the whole of Europe. It's going to be a defining political issue. You know, wait and see what happens in the European elections. There are gonna be some really dreadfully worrying results. We actually in the UK are not in that field. We don't have at the moment, we may have, but we don't have an extreme right party. I mean, Reform may be going in that direction, but we don't know yet. I see. I would say that the current Conservative cabal is very much in that direction. Oh, no. They're totally in disagreement. The Rwanda policy is a sort of act of—I mean, I'd be very interested to see how Starmer copes with this problem, how and what he's going to do. It isn't really a foreign policy issue.
Perkus: That's not. I do agree.
Dearlove: Well, as I said, it's a mix, but it's a potent domestic issue. And it's easy for Starmer to say, you know, we're gonna sit down and we're gonna talk to the French. I mean, that's been tried. I mean, I was responsible for relations with the French on very sensitive issues, not when that was a problem. You know, we sit down with the French and talk to them all the time behind the scenes. We actually have a good relationship with the French government in these areas.
Perkus: Why not set up processing centers in France? It just feels like an obvious solution. Yeah. But the French won't agree necessarily. Also, what's wrong with—again, we're going away from foreign policy—what's wrong with just processing them quickly? Actually, while they're waiting, put them to work. Let them do some of that fruit picking in the fields. I just think there are much more humane ways to deal with people who are fleeing some of the most dangerous countries on the planet.
Dearlove: Well, okay. If they're genuine refugees, I accept that. If they're economic migrants, it's a different problem. The trouble is it's a very big mixture of the two.
Perkus: My parents were economic migrants who came over to this country as were, you know, Sunak's grandparents, as were Suella Braverman's parents, as were so many of the people in cabinet's parents who are now just drawing up the ladder once they've benefited from that movement.
Dearlove: I don't really disagree with you at all. And, you know, I'm a very open-minded and tolerant person. And I understand, you know, that and the benefit to the country. The point now is though—
Perkus: It's become a toxic political issue. Deliberately so.
Dearlove: No. You can't say deliberately so. There are an awful lot of—it's been politicized.
Perkus: Absolutely. I don't—can't understand. Look at our media landscape. Look at—if just look at the Daily Mail and the number of headlines that have been put out there to incite hatred and to make people fear, you know, people coming over. There's always a focus on if someone commits a crime and they are not white, where they're from, their religion is always called out as part of the headline. That doesn't happen if it's a white perpetrator. It's been engineered this way so people fear.
Dearlove: Yeah, maybe to an extent you're right, but there is a massive reaction in the population to this problem whether it's stated by the media or not. You just can't get away from that. In some respects I know the problem better in France than in the UK. The way that you know French identity and French culture is threatened for the average French person. This is why you know Le Pen might well be the next president of France, Marine Le Pen, which is pretty catastrophic if you think about it politically. But the impact on French cities, if you go to Marseille, which I've done with the French police, and go into the ghettos of Marseille, it's terrifying.
Perkus: I mean, it is terrifying. I agree that ghettos of any shape or size or form are terrifying, probably. We're starting to see that in the UK, by the way. We're starting to see ghettos, and not just of immigrants, but also British ghettos. Basically, we're talking about rampant, raging poverty. So I think there needs to be more done to integrate these people, to help them integrate in society, to give them jobs.
Dearlove: Absolutely. Absolutely agree with you. And, you know, I think integration is exactly—but some of these communities are very, very reluctant to integrate.
Perkus: What do you think Starmer should try to do to turn down the heat when it comes to certain aggressors. So Russia, China, Iran, especially in the light of the story this week where China accused the MI6 of turning two Chinese government workers who were a married couple into spies. There's a lot of tit for tat going on. There's a lot of happens over there, happens over here.
Dearlove: One thing I'm not gonna do is comment on this arrest of this Chinese couple. All I'm gonna say is that when one is in a state of hybrid warfare with Russia, a state of significant challenge from China, there is obviously going to be intelligence activity on both sides. It's a natural part of the condition. I wouldn't have called it necessarily enmity. It is with Russia but not yet with China. So there's, you know, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes. You know we have a significant intelligence community as part of the UK's sort of national security DNA. And similarly China has a massive, huge intelligence capability, which has exercised for years in an aggressive fashion and that continues on a constant basis. If you're making a comparison what China and Russia are doing is hugely bigger than what the West is doing because, you know, it's sort of built in as a central part of the sort of structures of state control. So I don't think you should be surprised given the international situation by that at all. I mean, every now and again, things will break into the public domain. Most of the time, they don't. It's a tricky one to navigate because we're so reliant on China. Well, I think trade—I absolutely agree with. Look. The conundrum in foreign policy for this century is how to manage the relationship with China. This is not the Cold War. The West, and I include United States and Europe in that, have intertwined economies with China. There isn't a separation. Okay. Some things are being separated, but we're still hugely interdependent for trade. We have to, as it were, take account of that and develop a policy which allows the relationship where it's beneficial and important to continue, but for the Chinese to understand that you know we have our limits, we have our boundaries and that part of the relationship is that they must respect them as we respect theirs and have respected theirs. I think we're just in a phase where we have almost a meltdown in international security. Certainly, you know, the post-war Pax Americana has disappeared. Okay. America is still the dominant superpower. And the question now is, you know, how we manage the Chinese relationship. And I mean, there are aspects to the Chinese relationship which remain positive. Okay. They've behaved appallingly on Hong Kong and broken the agreement of the joint declaration. But you know, it's still necessary for us to find a means to make this relationship operate at least to a positive degree. But I mean, the Chinese are making it very, very difficult internationally. I mean, look at their activity in the South China Sea, the provocation against the Philippines in the Second Thomas Reef area, you know, which they're claiming as Chinese waters when it's clearly the maritime waters of the Philippines.
Perkus: Another thing that strikes me about this is, you know, obviously, you've got things like the human rights issues with, for example, the Uighurs in China. For me as an outsider, I feel like we as a country have lost our sort of moral high ground to be able to lecture anyone on abuses of human rights and complying with international law because of some of the positions that we've taken in the last twelve months. I think that's a bit strong. I again—I'm seeing this from a—I expect from my politicians to uphold a certain moral standing. And especially, and this is where Keir Starmer let me down and let many people down, you can't be a former prosecutor. You can't be a former human rights lawyer and not understand that there is a breaking of international law going on and that there are war crimes being committed in—
Dearlove: Look, I admire your idealism, but can I just—
Perkus: From one idealist moral to another? Foreign policy does not work.
Dearlove: It would be wonderful if it did, and this is where, I mean, you know, the reassertion of the interest of the nation state. We are not in a position to lecture China on, you know, ethical, moral issues. We do, but the Chinese don't take much notice. Why should they? No. Well, I agree. And I'm very much—you know, when Robin Cook introduced the concept of moral foreign policy, some of us sucked our teeth. I've come from the Kissinger School of Foreign Policy. And, you know, that is pragmatic. It is down to earth. It is practical. It takes account of national interest. It's a difficult area because there comes a point particularly in conflict where maybe moral judgments do become really important. But I'm not saying this is black and white, it's a matter of emphasis. But I think at the moment it would be wonderful if we could conduct our foreign policy according to moral rules, but if we would put ourselves at a severe disadvantage internationally. And interestingly, I mean the Labour Party as an aspiring government show no signs of doing that. I mean I think that Keir Starmer will be pretty pragmatic. And I mean it's not areas of foreign policy as far as the Labour government go that particularly worried me. I mean if he really has changed—and then he has a track record which isn't that admirable, but if he really has changed fine. I mean you know he's putting forward a strong national security policy. He's not going to change any of the big issues. If he can conduct successful negotiations with the Europeans, great. I mean you know what I would like to see is a relatively cohesive EU which is capable of serious geopolitics which it isn't at the moment with the UK as its closest ally. That's my ideal European solution. I'm a European, I'm just not enthusiastic about the EU. And the EU is heading for a mighty crisis because—I think the Express has been saying this for a while. Well, but the European elections are gonna be a really big problem for everybody. Von der Leyen looks as though she may lose the job unless she does a deal with Meloni, i.e. a deal with the hard—
Perkus: But Meloni is an interesting one. You know, she was very much anti-EU. Now she's a kingmaker for the EU.
Dearlove: Well, she's—I think what she's decided is a pragmatist. And she is a pragmatist, that the EU is not an issue which Italy wants to fight about. Probably because they've seen what happened with Brexit. Well, I don't think it's—no. I don't think it has anything to do with it. I really, really don't. No. I think it's a very good case study. I don't think it's a case study at all because it's sui generis. The UK is an island, it has a different history. It is not part of Continental Europe, it never was part of Continental Europe. So it's a completely different issue.
Perkus: Okay, last question for you, Sir Richard. So I want you to imagine you're Keir Starmer or your David Lammy, what's the first thing you're doing in terms of foreign policy when you get your feet under the desk?
Dearlove: You ring up your primary partners internationally. So you call the president of the United States. Into his jail cell? Well, hang on. It's gonna happen. If it's Trump—Biden—he's gonna be calling up. He'll ring Biden. I think it's important that, you know, he tries to establish some sort of personal resonance with Biden. He'll ring Macron. He'll ring Scholz. And then he'll probably ring prime minister of Japan, prime minister of Australia. The relationships—it's hard to grade them and of course how they're graded is going to be a personal decision for him and his advisors. But you know he needs to get off on the right foot. I mean if the polls are right, he's gonna have a lot of authority because he's gonna have a big majority in parliament. And he needs to establish himself as a serious interlocutor, a serious player. And I don't think there will be any significant quick change. I mean I think we've agreed that there is a pretty big element of continuity in foreign policy between the two parties.
Perkus: You mean you've probably got lots of areas not just in foreign—
Dearlove: Yes. I mean the two areas where there will be immediate impact obviously Rwanda. But I mean, I don't think that's a foreign policy issue, really. So that will be pushed to one side. But, again, no material impact there because not a single flight has taken off. We've just lost a shed load of money for our taxpayers. Yeah. It's peanuts.
Perkus: Well, I don't know. When you look at, say, for example, you know, it's half £1,000,000,000. We're looking half a billion pounds and the rest, which they've not disclosed.
Dearlove: It's change, really. I agree it's a loss, but it, you know, it is a loss. And then the next issue, but I think it'll take them a long time, a new government to get to grips with talking to the Europeans because the European elections are going to have a big impact on the EU. The EU won't be ready to talk to us. That won't mature for at least a year, maybe longer, a couple of years. I mean there might be some small concessions. But as I say my vision is that the triumvirate of key European nations, that's UK, France and Germany are going to have to as it were coordinate more closely particularly on issues of security and defense. That's going to be really important. And there is one area where the EU probably can make a serious contribution to European security, which is to coordinate, and that's what it's good at, armaments production across Europe because, you know, this is gonna be a big issue in holding the line for Ukraine against Russia. And it is an opportunity for the EU to show that in an area of geopolitical consequence, it can make an impact. And hitherto, it hasn't done that.
Perkus: We shall see. And, of course, in 2026, we've got the first review of the Brexit trade deal as well, haven't we? Yeah. I mean, I think the Brexit issue is over time gonna die a natural death. When you say that, what do you mean? Are you worried? As a Brexiteer, are you worried about Brexit in the hands of Keir Starmer? Well, I don't know. It depends what happens inside his government and inside his party. I think it would be massively retrograde.
Dearlove: What I find extraordinary is that, you know, the remainers have never accepted their loss. We would have accepted it, Sir Richard, had we seen any benefit whatsoever. You've seen a huge benefit. Please. Do tell. We are an autonomous country. We can make our own foreign policy, and we can make our own security policy. To go back to our preliminary conversation, if we had still been in the EU, Starmer would not have been able to put VAT on private school fees because it's illegal in the European Union.
Perkus: There you go. You found a benefit. Did you know that? I actually knew it was linked. So I know that Richard Tice, he wanted to appeal the decision, but he can't because of our withdrawal from the EU. Very interesting of all people, Richard Tice, to fall victim to that. So there you go. Interesting.
Dearlove: Right. Lots to play for. So there's a big benefit in terms of class warfare for the Labour Party and not being in the EU.
Perkus: Always. All the roads lead to Brexit. Thank you so much, Sir Richard. Been a great discussion. Good discussion.
Perkus: That's it for this week's episode of One Decision. We drop new episodes every Thursday. Like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. And drop us a line. Tell us your thoughts. What decisions have impacted you where you live? You can write to us. Our email is 1decision@1decisionpodcast.com. And from me and the team, thank you for listening, and see you next time.
