Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
In this week’s One Decision In Brief, hosts Kate McCann and former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove assess the stakes behind President Donald Trump’s historic second state visit to the United Kingdom amid a political storm that is testing Prime Minister Keir Starmer's leadership. They weigh in on the cultural politics surrounding free speech and faith that are resurfacing in Britain, the UK’s division between U.S. and EU perspectives on AI regulation, and NATO unity on Ukraine. Plus, Sir Richard discusses the vetting process for former UK Ambassador to the U.S., Lord Peter Mandelson, and whether Number 10 was aware of his closer ties to Jeffrey Epstein than previously thought.
Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mccann: Hello, and welcome to One Decision in Brief. I'm joined today, as I always am, by my co-host, Richard Dearlove.
Dearlove: Morning. Hi, Kate. How are you?
Mccann: I'm good. I'm good. Lovely to speak to you again. Look, everyone here in the UK is getting geared up and excited because Donald Trump is going to land this week for his unprecedented second state visit. Lots of focus on royal occasions. Parliament isn't sitting, which means he won't address the two houses, but there's gonna be so much politics going on this week. What are you really looking out for?
Dearlove: Well, there will be a lot of optics, so a lot of emphasis will be on ceremony. But, of course, behind the scenes, there's going to be some important talking. I mean, the primary issues, I'm sure, are gonna be strategic about Ukraine in particular because that's obviously the area of biggest difference at the moment between the Trump administration in Europe and Starmer, I think, will cast himself as a sort of interlocutor for Europe. Then, you know, there there will be a ton of trade issues and subjects related to the trade issues, and I think those be the principal topics. We've already seen one indicated, which is this agreement's gonna be signed on the construction of nuclear power stations, which actually is a very positive move because it does indicate a more sensible energy policy in the UK, which will be partly driven by a significant increase over the next fifteen, twenty years, in terms of nuclear power, following really the French model. But I'm just intrigued to see what the optics are on the street about Trump because, obviously, you know, this is a left wing government with a hard left core of the Labour Party who are gonna find it very difficult to be enthusiastic about a second Trump state visit, whereas the benefit to the UK is pretty clear in terms of us getting preferential treatment and Trump talking, which I've heard him do very upbeat about, you know, the US-UK relationship.
Mccann: I'll be really interested to see how this week plays out because although the Labour Party traditionally, you're right, is a left wing government, and I think in lots of areas it is still very left wing, there are areas where it is increasingly sounding like the old Conservative government, including on things like immigration. Keir Starmer's response to the Unite the Kingdom march over the weekend, which, you know, some people may have missed, but 110,000 to 150,000 people on the streets of London marching with flags, talking about unity and faith and identity, largely in response to a feeling that free speech is being threatened, partly in response to what's happened in America with Charlie Kirk, although I think less so. But there's definitely an element of that. And I wonder whether this moment, Keir Starmer, the prime minister, will use it as an opportunity to try and prove his credentials in those areas. Because the risk with Donald Trump is that he cares a lot about this free speech issue. And there is a real feeling in America that the UK has lost its way on free speech, that you can be arrested for a tweet, that people, the police are going round looking at what people are writing on the internet. And while that's true to an extent, it's not really representative of the full picture. But the risk for Keir Starmer is if Donald Trump starts saying that, you know, he's got to be able to preempt that and respond to it. I wonder whether this might be the moment for the prime minister to start sounding a little bit tougher on some of those things.
Dearlove: Well, I think that's a very interesting theory, and I think you could be right. I mean, clearly, if the Starmer government are to, as it were, regain some political ground against Reform, and, you know, this is a crucial political issue in the UK at the moment, they're gonna have to be much more clear cut on immigration. And, obviously, the free speech issue is important too.
Mccann: I think the thing for the UK, and this is very much, you know, your area of expertise, the delicate balance and the work that will have been done before this visit is around NATO, Ukraine and how to ensure everybody is on the same page. Because we know with Donald Trump, that's always been a point of tension. He's been very he's been quite brutal about NATO before, hasn't he? What what do you think? Because it's a difficult moment for Ukraine here. What do you think Keir Starmer would count as a win during this visit?
UKRAINE, NATO AND STRATEGY
Dearlove: I think a clear move on the part of Trump, isn't conditional on what other NATO countries do on sanctions because he's made this statement on energy supplies and saying, well, you know, you Europeans stop buying Russian energy. And, you know, why on earth should we increase sanctions? You know, when you're the guys who are providing the money for Putin to conduct the war? So, I mean, that would be a crucial issue, I think. Absolutely crucial issue. And I also think some clear commitment from the Trump administration. I don't think it'll come from Trump personally, but it might come afterwards about continued armament of Ukraine even if the Europeans are paying for it. I mean, recently, I've been talking to people and sort of getting a much clearer insight. There's definitely a divide within the Trump administration between classic hardline isolationists who I think are grouped around Vance and interestingly, Hegseth. So the strange thing is that the DOD in the United States are sort of isolationist and very, very keen to end this war, whereas the sort of foreign policy gurus in the administration understand precisely the importance of the war and Ukraine coming out of it undefeated. What I mean by that is, you know, no clear Russian victory and as it were, surrendering of territory on bogus terms to Russia. There's clearly a tension. The question is, I think Trump at the moment is havering. He's closer to the isolationists in his administration. But on the other hand, I think as president of the United States, POTUS forty seven, he's beginning to have a much, much clearer idea of the strategic issues which are at stake in terms of Europe and the United States' relationship with Europe.
Mccann: It strikes me, you know, this tension about what would be good for Ukraine this week. Some of the things Donald Trump has been saying recently are quite concerning. One of them, he said to Ukraine, don't start a war if you don't think you can win it and you're going come asking for weapons, which again shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is actually going on here. What is it that he really wants the UK to do, do you think, at this point?
Dearlove: I mean, I think that Trump is quite emotional about his relationship with the United Kingdom. You've got to bear in mind, you know, how recent that is in terms of his mother's upbringing Scottish croft. I think he really does see the UK as an important partner. And, of course, his foreign policy at the moment is such that he's sort of on an alienating track. He's annoyed so many of America's closest and traditional allies, and, you know, maybe he sees, you know, this sort of relationship with the UK as important, but he's never going to admit that. I mean, from the sort of glory for him of doing this visit, you know, why else would he be spending time focusing on this relationship? I think it's incredibly interesting. I'm sure that there are commercial deals using the Trump phraseology, which will be a huge benefit to both countries. Although, you know, you have to recognize that the UK in this respect is the supplicant. There's no way we're in the driving seat. And, you know, there are lots of other crucial areas apart from energy, pharmaceuticals being one which is extremely topical and extremely important. And, of course, the other issue, which I think is slow burn, but probably maybe more important than all of them is the regulatory environment for AI. Because at the moment, you have a serious clash between Europe represented by the EU and the libertarian approach in the US on AI. Where does the UK stand? Is it going to stand on the US side of the equation or the European side of the equation?
Mccann: I suppose the other thing when you think about practicalities is that this idea that Donald Trump will come here with a challenge to the UK and the EU more generally on energy and talking about stopping using Russian oil. The issue, of course, is that we know at the moment that India is taking Russian crude oil, it's refining it and pumping it back through Europe. The Indian government has been very clear about this. In fact, they themselves say, if you didn't buy it, we wouldn't be doing it. Well, they'd find an alternative outlet for it, at least. Donald Trump has laid down the gauntlet and said, I'm ready to sanction Russia, but only when the rest of you are ready to do the same. Is there any chance that you think that the UK and the EU might be prepared for that?
Dearlove: They're gonna have to come to terms both with Trump and with India. I mean, one thing I was struck recently by is if you look at the statistics on Indian economy and Indian development and projections, it's quite probable that within a relatively short time frame, I mean, I'm talking about years, the Indian economy is gonna be bigger than China. So you can see how India is trying to place itself, and it's not prepared to be pro American. It's not prepared to be pro Chinese. It's not prepared to be pro European. It's only prepared to be Indian because it sees its future. Modi is definitely a sort of economic nationalist, if not a populist, and, you know, this is their big objective. So I think the Europeans, if they want to make serious progress strategically on getting Ukraine into the right position in terms of their support, they're gonna somehow have to deal with the Indian issue, and that might mean a difficulty for the EU making some serious trading concessions to get the Indians on side.
THE PETER MANDELSON FALLOUT
Mccann: I suppose we should end, really, on Peter Mandelson, because if he was a name that a lot of people had not heard before this week, I'm sure almost everybody will have heard of him now. He was, until recently, the UK's American ambassador. A huge job, really important job, and important to get right with the Trump administration. He was appointed by Keir Starmer in full knowledge that he had had a relationship previously with Jeffrey Epstein. I don't think well, Number 10 Downing Street says that they did not know the full extent of that relationship until in the middle of last week, which is when there was a decision made to sack him. There is now a huge fallout about this decision, about what would have been known by whom and when, largely around vetting. Because what has emerged last week is that there is a trove of emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson around the time of Epstein's conviction. And Downing Street, Keir Starmer's team say that's what tipped the balance against Mandelson. So Richard, one of the questions that lots of people have is why would people have not known this before?
Dearlove: Well, I am really mystified by this, and I did say on the podcast when Mandelson was appointed that it was inappropriate, but I didn't go into detail. But our listeners should understand that Mandelson is a very clever, capable individual and of course he had been trade commissioner in the European Union, but over and above that he has an integrity problem. He's had to resign twice in the UK from ministerial posts for his behavior. So if you're gonna appoint someone to such a sensitive job as British ambassador to the United States and you know he has an integrity problem, you've got to be triply careful in, as it were, vetting him. And there is a procedure for vetting. It's done departmentally in the UK, and he should have been put through the ringer. And that means taking references from people who know him. It also means him being very carefully interviewed. And if I'd been vetting him, and I'm sure the vetter would have done this, the first question you say, is there anything in your background that isn't already in the public domain that we don't know about which could bring you, the office of ambassador of the United Kingdom and manage this government into disrepute? Well, obviously, there was in this case. So did Mandelson come absolutely clean in the interview, and you're not meant to or you really can't lie in a vetting interview and explain the nature of the relationship. So that's the first point. If he did, was he appointed in the knowledge of that relationship or was he not transparent about it and didn't describe it properly? So, you know, every which way this looks bad. I mean, either Mandelson lied or the government appointed him knowing that there was a problem and it was a massive misjudgment. And, you know, they were appointing a man that they knew had a problem. Therefore, they had to be incredibly careful and forensic in making that decision, and whoever made the decision or advised the prime minister to make those had called it completely wrong. And I'm not the slightest bit surprised by what happened.
Mccann: You say whoever advised the prime minister. I was looking down at my phone just briefly there while you were speaking because there is another breaking news story as we are recording this, which is that one of Keir Starmer's most senior aides has just quit. It's a guy called Paul Ovenden. He will not be a household name to most people, but he was very, very close to the prime minister, wrote a lot of his speeches, very important in the Starmer project. He's resigned over leaked messages, which are actually not to do with Peter Mandelson. But what it shows to me as a political editor, I've worked in Westminster for a long time now, we are now at a point where basically it's any scandal. It's scandal on top of scandal on top of scandal. The prime minister had to sack his deputy, Angela Rayner. He then sacked Peter Mandelson. We're now seeing very senior members of his staff leave because there is almost a concerted effort now to just kind of peel back the layers. And that's a really worrying thing for a prime minister, only just a year in the job, massive majority who now seems completely paralyzed by the political chaos going on around him.
Dearlove: Absolutely agree. I mean, it's an extraordinary series of events and he's caught in a web of things looking just worse than the previous government that they were attacking Boris Johnson's for their integrity. And what's happened to Starmer is actually far more serious.
Mccann: We will start where we began, shall we, with the Donald Trump visit, because for all of the distractions, for all of the chaos, for all of the turmoil, Keir Starmer will no doubt hope that this Trump visit will be a success and provide a moment to pivot, as politicians like to do, towards something that he thinks is more important.
Dearlove: You know, I wish him well on this visit and one of the things that he and Mandelson, to be fair to him, had handled extremely well up to this point is the relationship with the United States, which many other countries have got wrong. So they have had the capacity to get certain things right. And in a way, this is a celebration of that relationship, the state visit. But, you know, let's see what else comes up. And I think, Kate, you'd be very clever at sort of picking out and identifying points of crucial importance which are politically sensitive here in the UK.
Mccann: Well, that's it for this week's One Decision in Brief, and do stay tuned to our regular scheduled episodes. As I said, you can find those on our YouTube page on onedecision.com or wherever you get your podcasts from. I'm Kate McCann. Thanks very much for listening.
