Latest / The Fourcast / The King meets Trump - what could go wrong?

Transcript

The King meets Trump - what could go wrong? · The Fourcast

0:00
Endorsing a president who has engaged in so many acts against
0:04
international law strikes me as being the kind of endorsement
0:07
that we shouldn't be issuing at this time.
0:09
I don't think it should be seen as an endorsement.
0:11
I think when you have state visits there for state reasons.
0:15
It's actually in the sort of the ghost of the banquet.
0:17
Andrew was and still is a huge stain on King Charles.
0:21
Monarchy, unfortunately, is probably going to be one of the
0:25
things that King Charles is remembered for.
0:28
There was a attack. How worried would you be about
0:32
security? Hello and welcome to the
0:39
forecast. The king is in Washington for
0:41
controversial state visit in the immediate aftermath of an
0:44
assassination attempt on the president.
0:46
But our rogue gunman and LAX security?
0:49
Actually the least of Charles's concerns.
0:52
Some, like broadcasting royalty David Dimbleby, said the King
0:55
shouldn't go. There's the erratic behaviour of
0:58
Donald Trump, his scathing attacks on Keir Starmer, his
1:01
insult to British forces in Afghanistan and his threats to
1:04
the sovereignty of the Falklands, not to mention
1:06
Canada. There's his ambivalence towards
1:09
Ukraine and his humiliation of its president.
1:12
And of course, the war in Iran and its impact on Britain's
1:15
economy. All of that before mentioning
1:18
Epstein, Andrew and his barbs at Harry and Meghan.
1:22
But the British monarchy is one of the few things Trump always
1:26
seems genuinely thrilled by. So can the soft power of the
1:29
King get the British American relationship back on course and
1:33
change anything about Trump's behaviour?
1:35
Or is it just pageantry with no relevance to power and
1:39
diplomacy? To discuss all this, I'm joined
1:41
by Julie Montague, an American who married into the British
1:44
aristocracy and is now Countess of Sandwich.
1:47
Al Pinkerton is the Liberal Democrats Europe spokesperson
1:51
and a professor of geopolitics. And Sir David Manning was the
1:54
British ambassador to the US under Tony Blair and then an
1:58
adviser to Princess William and Harry.
2:00
So, David, let's begin first of all with, you know, what do you
2:05
think is the best they can hope for out of this royal trip?
2:09
King's going at a very difficult time, probably the most
2:13
difficult time in the bilateral relationship that any of us can
2:16
remember. But as you said in your
2:18
introduction, he does seem to be somebody who is respected by
2:23
Trump and admired by him. I think it's important not to
2:28
see the visitors political in its essence, though of course,
2:31
it can't be detached from its political context.
2:35
But what I think the king may be able to do is to provide
2:38
something of a shock absorber in at a time when things are very
2:43
difficult and a stabilizer to the relationship.
2:48
And I think remind Trump and remind the American people more
2:53
widely of the relationship that's very deep, very long
2:57
lasting on their 250th anniversary of independence.
3:02
So I do think it's important to distinguish between the idea
3:06
that he's going to be able to negotiate on that long list of
3:09
very difficult issues that you described and to provide what a
3:14
state visit provides, which is a a celebration and a reflection
3:18
on a relationship between two countries.
3:20
Al Pinkerton. I mean, what is it you're really
3:23
worried about? Is it that the king would be
3:25
humiliated or that you want to give a slap in the face to
3:28
Donald Trump? It's certainly not the latter.
3:31
I mean, I think there's a whole list of things that I could
3:33
recount, but I'll just give you my my top three.
3:35
First of all, diplomacy is a stage and meetings like this are
3:38
absolutely part of a kind of very carefully choreographed
3:41
piece of stagecraft. But as you said in your
3:44
introduction, this is an incredibly erratic president who
3:47
I who does not stick to the script and I think is going to
3:50
improvise his way through that encounter.
3:53
That's certainly the risk that he's that's what he's done with
3:55
other world leaders when they have attended the White House.
3:58
And I think that will put the King in a really invidious
4:00
position if he does go off script and does challenge the
4:03
King to to respond, which of course he cannot do.
4:06
I think the second point is the geopolitical context, whether
4:09
that be the threats that he's made against Canada, the
4:11
diminution of the Canadian Prime Minister referring to Mark
4:14
Carney as a governor, Carney claiming Canada as the 51st
4:17
state, that that's the King's realm that we're talking about
4:21
here. Not not least to say what he's
4:23
done in Greenland, in Iran, and then also the latest offence
4:27
over over the Falkland Islands. And then I think the final
4:30
thing, it's the optics. A royal visit is also a kind of
4:35
endorsement. And I think to be endorsing a
4:38
president who has engaged in so many acts against international
4:42
law, whilst we also talk about the vitality of international
4:45
law for our global system, strikes me as being the kind of
4:48
endorsement that we shouldn't be issuing at this time.
4:50
So there's a lot to pick up on there, and we will.
4:52
But Julie, I mean, how much of America do you think shares
4:57
Donald Trump's sort of awe? I don't think a large
5:01
proportion, to be perfectly honest.
5:02
In fact, I saw something on social media where they were
5:04
interviewing Americans in Washington, DC, and some of them
5:08
had no idea who the king was. So this visit is very different
5:12
from, let's say, when Queen Elizabeth the Second visited
5:15
there because she was this, you know, incredible woman long, you
5:19
know, the longest reigning monarch.
5:21
The king has only been, you know, the king for a few years.
5:25
So again, I'm not sure how much pageantry is going to be shown
5:31
apart from what we see in Washington, DC across other
5:34
Americans or states. It's, it's been very, I, I think
5:38
subtle this visit because Trump does shine the light on himself
5:43
all of the time. And yes, we talk about this
5:46
special relationship between the US and the UK.
5:49
And is it in decline at such, is it weakening?
5:52
But the special relationship that I think Trump views the UK
5:56
is, is the special relationship between himself and the royal
5:59
family. And for that, he definitely
6:02
doesn't want to put any stain on that.
6:05
So he will be on his best behaviour.
6:08
The true, the truth Social posts that will be coming out at 2 AM,
6:12
3:00 AM in the morning will be glowing posts.
6:15
I'm certain of that. So you, you, you don't share the
6:18
worries that he'll he'll go off script and say something
6:21
embarrassing. Absolutely not.
6:24
He will be on the best behavior. So, David, I mean, what about Al
6:29
Pinkerton's point about a royal visit being effectively an
6:33
endorsement? Is that true?
6:34
I mean, if you think about all the people the Queen used to
6:37
have to shake hands with, are they all endorsements?
6:41
Or is it is it just the job of a royal to do things like the
6:46
250th anniversary of the states of the United States?
6:50
I understand what I was saying. It's not actually a view I
6:53
share. I don't think it should be seen
6:55
as an endorsement. I think when you have state
6:58
visits there for state reasons, and I also think it goes much
7:03
wider than Trump. I think it's important to
7:06
remember that the King has been asked to go on the 250th
7:10
anniversary to celebrate relations between all aspects of
7:16
the two countries and their links together.
7:18
Now, I where I might agree with him is I'm not sure it was a
7:23
good idea to send the king so swiftly after Trump came to
7:28
Britain last year. It's it's odd to have a return
7:31
visit so quickly. On the other hand, this is the
7:35
250th anniversary of a relationship that goes back a
7:38
very long way. So I don't think we should see
7:41
it as endorsement for Trump. And it's perfectly clear that's
7:45
not where the British government is.
7:46
We've got some very profound differences with the Trump
7:49
administration at a time when it clearly doesn't share the same
7:54
view of the world as we do, and it's not underpinned by the same
7:58
values, unfortunately. But I think that the King's
8:01
visit needs to be seen in a broader context than that, as a
8:05
celebration of the two countries over a long period and the many
8:09
aspects of their relations. And as I said earlier, I think
8:14
there's also a possibility that he can help improve the climate
8:18
so that the debates that we're having and the very deep
8:21
differences that have now emerged can be dealt with in a
8:24
little less, a little less stridently than has been the
8:29
case in the last few days. I mean, have you seen the king
8:33
close up in a diplomatic setting?
8:36
I was, I was talking to one of one of the people closely
8:39
involved with this trip recently.
8:41
He was telling me about when Trump came over to to London and
8:45
spent time with the king. And the king and Trump sort of
8:48
get this time together where they are alone and, you know,
8:52
talking for quite some time. And he was saying, you know,
8:56
nobody knew what was going on. And they came out of it.
8:59
And it's had apparently gone incredibly well.
9:02
And the king had talked about things that Trump wouldn't have
9:05
agreed with, you know, but he does it in this rather
9:10
impressive way. I mean, is this just part of
9:13
sort of the mythology of around around the royal family or do
9:16
you think it's true? I don't think it is mythology
9:19
actually. I, the King, came twice to
9:22
Washington when I was ambassador there.
9:24
In those days, of course, he was the Prince of Wales and on one
9:27
occasion he came for a week or so.
9:29
In another occasion, it was much briefer.
9:31
And that's when I've seen him in action.
9:34
And he's in a very effective diplomat.
9:37
He's very good at reaching out to people.
9:40
And I think, you know, it's important to remember that
9:43
diplomacy is talking to people you often don't agree with.
9:46
And I think he's able to connect.
9:49
I think he probably is able to understand where the other
9:52
person's coming from. And I'm quite sure he's able to
9:54
put across his own views that may not at all be the same views
9:59
as Trump, but without being provocative about it.
10:02
So I don't think 1 should see it as as an as an endorsement of
10:09
Trump's views because he's talking to him.
10:11
On the other hand, I think he may be able to remind Trump of
10:14
all sorts of things that have been very important in the
10:18
relationship, like the contribution to British armed
10:21
forces, like our relationship over, you know, successive
10:26
international crises and do this very effectively.
10:30
I think it's important that he's able to do this privately.
10:34
And I think, of course, we don't want the session in the in the
10:39
chair, in the Oval Office where Trump is playing to the cameras.
10:44
You can't be sure that this is going to go completely to
10:47
script. You can't be sure that the
10:49
president won't say something disobliging or something.
10:53
But he's erratic. But I I agree with what was said
10:56
earlier. I don't think Trump wants this
10:58
visit to fail. I think quite the reverse.
11:01
And I think he will do his best to make sure that it it works
11:04
out well. Julie, I mean, you say a lot of
11:07
Americans don't really know who he is.
11:08
Do you think this king can engage with Americans rather
11:13
than, you know, beyond Trump? Well, we have to remember that
11:17
the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the signing of
11:20
the Declaration of Independence was, of course, because America
11:22
did not want a monarchy. And King Charles is coming over
11:26
there to sort of celebrate this, this momentous moment and the
11:30
special relationship between two countries.
11:32
So I suspect as Americans, you're more prone to engage in a
11:37
celebration around no kings because we've seen all of those
11:41
protests recently and continuing.
11:44
Does that mean Americans are sort of hostile to the idea of
11:47
kings? Yes, or or.
11:49
Just in their or just in their own country, I.
11:51
Think in their, I think in that, yes, it's a really good
11:53
question. I think in their own country,
11:55
absolutely. But of course there is this
11:57
connection with the United Kingdom and tourism.
12:01
Americans flock over here because of the, you know,
12:04
illustrious past, the 1000 years of history that the UK has, that
12:08
Britain has of, you know, of, of kings and Queens.
12:11
But going back to Sir David's points about point about this
12:15
conversation between a private conversation between King
12:19
Charles and Trump, I do think that King Charles will be also
12:23
very careful about what he says behind closed doors because we
12:27
know that in the past, especially with Megan and Harry,
12:31
you know, things to have turned out in a book.
12:33
They've been on an interview. They things that Charles has
12:36
said in the past has reached the media.
12:38
It can be quoted. He will be conscious of that.
12:41
I mean, I suppose the other point that people make is that
12:43
for all the success of Trump's visit to Britain, within months
12:49
he was threatening Greenland, attacking Starmer, attacking
12:52
NATO. You know what's what's the good
12:55
of a good relationship if that's what happens afterwards?
12:58
We often talk about the special relationship.
13:00
I don't think we're in a particularly special
13:01
relationship at all. I think we're in a very complex
13:03
situation Ship, to use the modern parlance right now.
13:06
I mean, David says that we don't want the United Kingdom, the
13:09
Prime Minister, the government don't want this to be seen as an
13:12
endorsement of Trump. But the truth is that's not
13:14
their choice. It's not their choice about how
13:16
this gets interpreted because the stage is in the United
13:19
States. It'll be up to Donald Trump and
13:21
the US media how this is determined.
13:24
And the fact that the king is going to the United States right
13:26
now with Donald Trump acting as he is on the global stage right
13:29
now vis A vis Canada, Venezuela, Greenland, the Falklands, Iran.
13:33
I think Donald Trump will take this opportunity to see this as
13:36
an endorsement, A normalization that look, diplomatic relations
13:40
continue despite everything I'm doing or maybe even because of
13:43
what I'm doing. That's, that's the downs upside
13:45
risk. This is a trip to my mind that
13:47
only has potential risks, perils and pitfalls.
13:51
And I genuinely can't see the upside opportunity because even
13:54
if this trip goes blindingly well, even if they, they connect
13:58
over a cup of tea and stories about his, his mother's
14:01
homeland, that will only last for 5 minutes.
14:04
Because next week he'll be attacking the United Kingdom
14:07
again, he'll be attacking Sadiq Khan.
14:08
He'll be saying that London is a city that has fallen.
14:11
And, and so he's so capricious and so quick to change his mind
14:16
that I think this is just filled with landmines.
14:19
But actually there's no long term benefit anyway.
14:21
I mean, there was. There was a really interesting
14:22
story from Rachel Sylvester and the Observer this this weekend
14:25
about how furious the king was when Trump denigrated the role
14:29
of British forces in Afghanistan.
14:32
And, and her story was that he'd actually wanted to get on the
14:35
phone and, and yell at Trump or do whatever the, the royal
14:39
equivalent of yelling is. And, and you know, and he, he
14:42
didn't in the end. But do you do you think he
14:44
should say something about the Falklands, for example, or
14:48
British forces or Canada while he's there?
14:52
I don't think he can because I, I think in unless he is sent
14:55
with explicit instructions to do that by the British government
14:58
and I don't believe that he will be, he is effectively silenced
15:01
in those moments. And that's rather different to
15:03
many other world leaders who sit with him in the Oval Office, who
15:06
could at least say something in retort.
15:09
He will be effectively silenced from, from doing that.
15:12
And of course, remember, Donald Trump a few weeks ago claimed
15:14
that the queen would have supported his actions in, in
15:18
Iran. That's another extraordinary
15:20
diplomatic faux pas for him to have undertaken.
15:23
So I, I, that's why I say this is filled with downside risk and
15:26
actually with very limited diplomatic opportunities.
15:28
So, so David, I mean, can he bring these things up and and
15:31
should he? Well, I think the first thing to
15:32
say is I don't I'm not in profoundly disagreeing with
15:35
without it is high risk visit and that's why we're having this
15:39
conversation. And once the announcement had
15:42
been made, it seems to me the visit was locked in barring the
15:46
most extraordinary circumstances.
15:48
Because if you hope, as I do, that it will provide anyway some
15:52
sort of shock absorber capacity and breathing space, to cancel
15:55
it when it's already been announced is simply to
15:58
exacerbate the problem you've already got.
16:01
Whereas you can hope that the king will have some effect in
16:04
stabilizing things. But it's perfectly true that
16:07
there are all sorts of risks here.
16:09
I'm not aware that that Trump leaked all sorts of things about
16:14
his conversations with the king when he came to London.
16:17
Perhaps he did and I'm not aware of it.
16:19
And I'm sure that the king was will certainly have been
16:22
extremely put out by what Trump said about the British armed
16:26
forces. I think there may be
16:28
opportunities to talk about this in general ways in the
16:31
bilateral, and there's certainly an opportunity to do it during
16:35
the state dinner when the king will be making a speech.
16:38
I don't I think it will be won't be full frontal.
16:42
It'll probably be fairly general and oblique.
16:45
But I don't think 1 should assume that that that
16:47
opportunity will necessarily be passed up to remind Trump of
16:52
what the British armed forces have been like to point out that
16:56
actually London is not a hellhole of crime.
16:58
And as some of the Trump administration seem to suggest
17:04
that actually Britain is a rather less violent place than
17:06
America, which we've just been reminded of this this very
17:10
weekend at the correspondents dinner.
17:13
I think there are. There are certainly messages you
17:15
can send without being, as it were, absolutely explicit.
17:20
You have also recently spoken about how you think the
17:24
relationship is fundamentally changed since Trump has come
17:30
come to power. I mean, do you think that is a,
17:34
a long lasting change? You know, is there a change that
17:36
goes beyond Trump or is it just this administration?
17:40
I don't think we know the answer to that, Krishna, but I think it
17:43
would be foolish to assume that things are going to go back to
17:47
the status quo ante. I think once you have had one
17:51
Trump administration and we all thought, well, we've learned
17:55
that lesson, now we have a second one.
17:57
And so I think you have to assume that something profound
18:00
has been changing in America. Now, it doesn't mean that if we
18:04
got a different administration, Democratic administration in in
18:08
three years time that there wouldn't be some very quick and
18:12
serious repair work undertaken. But nobody in future is going to
18:16
assume, as we have done until the first Trump administration,
18:21
that this relationship is bound to endure, that it is based
18:24
fundamentally on a shared view of how the world works and how
18:29
we would like it to work and on common assumptions.
18:31
Because that's clearly not where Trump is.
18:33
Trump's an America firster. He's transactional.
18:36
He isn't interested in free trade, human rights, all the
18:41
sort of things that have underpinned our relationship
18:43
with the United States. And I think where I absolutely
18:46
would agree, at least I imagine without, we've never had this
18:49
conversation, is that as a result of that whatever you hope
18:52
for in two or three years time, the only sensible thing for
18:56
Britain to do now is to salvage what it can with the
19:00
relationship with the United States and maintain it because
19:03
it remains crucially important to us in investment security and
19:07
so on. But at the same time, to re
19:10
insure elsewhere to build relationships that are much
19:13
closer with Europe, it's quite clear that that's what we need
19:17
to be doing urgently. We have the the, the, the twin
19:21
problems, the different problems, but Putin on one side
19:25
and Trump on the other and look more widely around the world to
19:28
Australia, Japan and so on. So I certainly don't think you
19:31
can expect the relationship to go back to where it was.
19:35
And I think it would be very foolish of us just to cross our
19:39
fingers and hope that somehow or other, everything's going to
19:42
turn out all right in 2029. Judy what?
19:45
What do you make of that? Well, it's as Sir David said,
19:48
it's almost going 2 steps back and it's going to be one step
19:51
forward with the next administration to.
19:54
And so that is, you know, he has dug a huge hole in this
19:58
relationship and it is definitely weakened.
20:00
It's not stable. And I, I know that many
20:04
Americans feel that as well. Of course you've got the MAGA
20:07
supporters. So I put them to one side.
20:10
But I do feel that the tide is turning in America with this on.
20:14
Predictability that he, you know, posts on his true socials,
20:19
what he carelessly says about world leaders and it's starting
20:24
to take effect and root in America, especially among the
20:28
independents and who many of them voted for Trump in the last
20:33
election. They are now, you know, they are
20:35
turning the tide and seeing how disruptive this administration
20:40
is on a global scale, I. Mean the the other thing that
20:43
you know, really isn't part of with the agenda and never never
20:46
really could have been, but it's been talked a lot in the media
20:50
is the whole Epstein survivors question, you know, whether the
20:54
king should have had some sort of meeting with with any of the
20:57
survivors. It always, it always struck me
20:59
as highly, highly improbable. But you have this sort of
21:03
situation where Trump is in some way tarred by, you know, the
21:07
whole question of how much transparency there's been over
21:10
the Epstein files. The king is caught in this bind
21:12
around his brother Andrew and the ongoing scandal, which he
21:17
denies, of course. I mean, is that is Epstein the
21:22
sort of the ghost at the at the banquet?
21:25
Absolutely. He's the elephant in the room.
21:27
And we know that many of the Epstein victims have come out
21:31
recently and said, I really want a chance to meet with the king.
21:35
Of course that's not going to happen.
21:37
This is, you know, a state banquet.
21:39
It's a it's a visit, but they are being vocal around it.
21:43
And Andrew was and still is a huge stain on King Charles
21:49
monarchy. I mean, on his reign.
21:50
Absolutely. I mean, that unfortunately is
21:53
probably going to be one of the things that King Charles is
21:57
remembered for. And of course, then there is an
21:59
association with Trump. So very difficult.
22:03
It won't happen. But I think it's I, I think it
22:06
is very powerful that these women are coming out and taking
22:10
a stand and saying we want to meet with you.
22:12
Oh, I mean. Is it, is it at all feasible?
22:16
I mean, could, Could the Queen, for example, who has spoken
22:19
about violence against women and sexual exploitation, could she
22:22
have done anything to reach out towards the Epstein victims?
22:26
Or is it all just too much? I mean, I, I think that is
22:30
possible. And I think if anyone was going
22:31
to do it, I think she would be an excellent candidate to have
22:33
that conversation. She's showing enormous
22:35
sensitivity around this topic. But of course it's not this is,
22:39
this is a, a trip not of her making it.
22:41
It is, it is not their program. This is the government's program
22:44
working with the United States government.
22:47
But I think, I mean, this is clearly the most appalling act
22:51
of, of international trafficking.
22:53
But in diplomatically speaking, this is another risk point
22:56
because all it would take is for a journalist to ask this
22:59
question in the Oval Office or elsewhere as presumably, given
23:03
the United States preponderance and, and, and conviction and
23:06
free speech, they could they could so easily do.
23:08
But then that creates that moment of embarrassment.
23:10
And who knows what then Donald Trump's response to that to that
23:14
might be I mean, I agreed with everything that David just said.
23:17
We need our relationship with the United States to be strong
23:20
to be in during, we need it to operate across multiple theatres
23:24
of economy and security. But my contention would be that
23:27
you achieve that not by at this moment putting a foot forward
23:31
engagement with a kind of proactive overseas visit.
23:35
I actually think that demonstrative cooling of a
23:38
relationship right now might actually be the better thing for
23:41
the long term sustainability of our relationship.
23:44
Because to be honest, we do need to work with other political
23:47
parties in the future. If, if this trip is perceived as
23:51
an endorsement of Trump now by Trump, by the media, by
23:55
Americans as a whole, then, and how can we say that we have an
24:00
interest in things like international law, which other
24:02
political parties in the United States do genuinely put as one
24:05
of their key mantras? My contention purely is that
24:09
sometimes you need to take a step back.
24:11
Now also remember, Krish, this this is not an unprecedented
24:14
situation. The 200th anniversary in 1976
24:17
was similarly controversial because we had, we just had the
24:20
Watergate scandal. There was genuine discussions
24:23
about who should go in 1976. Should it be the Queen or should
24:27
it be Prince Charles? As was in fact, the Queen did
24:31
end up going, but it was a very controversial it was.
24:35
It was a discussion that was proactively had at the time.
24:38
And there was a security scare as well, and.
24:40
There was a security scare, too. Absolutely so.
24:42
So this is not unprecedented. This is part of a long lineage
24:45
of royal visits to the United States.
24:47
So David, if you, if you were the ambassador today and the
24:50
Epstein survivors contacted you and said well, we would like a
24:53
meeting, how would you have handled it Well.
24:56
I think first thing to say is that I think this is a matter
24:59
that should be entirely left to the king and queen, whether they
25:02
want to meet the victims. And as I understand it, they're
25:07
not going to, but I believe the Queen may be meeting some women
25:12
who have suffered domestic abuse, but their obviously their
25:15
sympathy for the victims is not in any doubt.
25:18
I find this quite a curious stick with which if you like to
25:21
to beat us because this is an American crisis.
25:24
This is an American scandal and tragedy.
25:27
Of course, we know very well that there are prominent Brits
25:30
involved. But where is the demand to meet
25:34
the president of the United States and his wife to talk
25:37
about this? Why are we fixating on the king
25:41
and the Queen? So I think when we know that
25:44
successive presidents of United States have met the victims over
25:48
this, and then this has been going on a long time, maybe it's
25:52
then time for foreign heads of state to meet with them.
25:55
But I find it extraordinary that we should think that this is
25:58
this is something that should be particularly focused on on
26:01
Britain. And there's one other thing I
26:03
would say in reply to what Al said, and he's right about, I
26:08
know he feels strongly about this endorsement point.
26:10
I'm not clear that any Americans have said that the king
26:15
shouldn't come. And that includes Democrats.
26:18
And Democrats, I know, I think they want the US to recognize
26:23
the United States in all its complexity and not just send the
26:27
king as though he's some kind of token of appreciation of Trump.
26:31
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps they'd rather he didn't
26:33
come. But I'm certainly not aware of
26:35
that. And.
26:35
And so, David, I mean, the other elephant in the room, if we're
26:40
using that image, of course, is the King's son, Prince Harry.
26:46
You know, he's, he's going to a country where he lives, then
26:49
they're not going to meet. Trump has recently been a bit
26:52
snippy about Harry and Meghan and some comments to the to the
26:57
media. How awkward is that dynamic?
27:01
Well, I think I would detach the family relationship from the
27:06
official visit. You know, it's perfectly clear
27:09
that Harry and Meghan are not going to be meeting the king
27:12
during this. Yes, you're quite right.
27:14
President Trump, snippy about the President Trump, pretty
27:17
snippy about everybody, pretty snippy about the Pope.
27:20
But I don't think you should allow this to get in the way of
27:24
the business that's in hand and the role that the king is trying
27:27
to play. So again, I mean rather rather
27:31
like you know your earlier question about his relationship
27:35
with Andrew, I don't think myself that it's material to the
27:38
to the main purpose of this visit.
27:40
Julie, I mean, do do you have any sympathy with Megan and
27:44
Harry? Well, I was commentating at
27:46
their wedding back in 2018 at Windsor Castle and you know, it
27:50
goes, I go back however many years, that is 8 years.
27:54
And it was just this incredible environment where it blue sky,
27:59
people were cheering and this was supposed to be the new
28:01
modern couple. And we can see how that's
28:03
completely fallen off a Cliff and this division that's
28:06
happened. But we have to remember that
28:08
this is a royal visit. This is duty coming 1st.
28:13
And just like the Queen always put duty 1st and she did, King
28:17
Charles is doing the exact same thing, duty first.
28:20
He's there to represent the UK, as, you know, as the King.
28:25
And it is not an opportunity for him to then, you know, head to
28:29
California and visit his, his son and daughter-in-law and two
28:33
grandchildren. What do you think the dynamic is
28:34
with Trump and Megan? Why does he dislike her so much?
28:37
Well, because she's been quite vocal.
28:39
She's, she's very, she's always been very vocal.
28:41
We have to remember that with Megan, you know, even when she
28:43
married into the royal family, one of the things that she found
28:46
very difficult and almost demoralizing was that she wasn't
28:50
allowed to use her voice. And she's been very political
28:54
about her views on Donald Trump, as has Prince Harry.
28:59
So I suspect now is not the time to have that reunion, if there
29:04
was to be 1. How do you think, how do you
29:07
think it's come about that the British public seems so, so on
29:11
the King's side, if you like, you know, I mean, the public
29:14
seems to love William. And Catherine?
29:18
And Catherine, they have warmed to the King and Camilla and they
29:23
seem to loathe Harry and Meghan. Is is that APR campaign done
29:29
well or? It's it's very when you unpack
29:32
it, it's too much. So Harry and Meghan went into it
29:38
too much. They said too much, they wrote
29:41
too much, they told too much, and they wouldn't stop.
29:44
And it gets to that point where the American public is saying,
29:48
you know what, actually stop. Enough is enough.
29:52
This is your family. At first it comes out as really
29:55
good gossip, and then it becomes tiring.
29:58
And I think the American public has tired of that.
30:01
Whereas you, you look on the flip side and you look at the
30:04
Prince and Princess of Wales and the King and Queen.
30:06
And they stayed relatively be silent about this.
30:10
And silence sometimes can be your best weapon, Al.
30:13
The the man we haven't already spoken about is, is Keir
30:14
Starmer. And obviously Trump is being, I
30:16
mean, just bizarrely critical and scathing of Starmer and
30:22
insulting. Now politically at home, it's
30:24
probably doing Starmer some good is the truth.
30:28
But it is a very odd diplomatic situation, isn't it?
30:31
I mean, you presume the government is not expecting the
30:34
king to try and rescue Starmer's position with Trump.
30:38
Well, I don't know, I mean, but maybe that is what they're
30:40
they're hoping to some extent because otherwise I I don't know
30:44
really why there's. A personal situation.
30:46
Well, well, possibly. Possibly because, you know,
30:48
after all, support for the United Kingdom surely should
30:51
mean at least if not support for Keir Starmer, but at least a
30:54
dialling down of the tensions that exist between the White
30:58
House, Donald Trump and Keir Starmer, even though Keir
31:01
Starmer never seems to truly answer, you know, answer back.
31:04
I mean it, it is the most unprecedented breakdown in
31:07
diplomatic relations between 2 two partners.
31:09
That's why I say I think the special relationship is
31:12
currently in tatters. It's a currently a very there's.
31:14
Always nonsense, wasn't it? Well, yeah, I mean, probably a
31:18
bit nonsense, but it was. But at least it had some
31:20
plausibility because at least it was polite enough to be
31:22
plausible. It's now not even polite enough
31:24
to to be plausible. I mean, it's, it's a fundamental
31:27
breakdown. And of course, it's not just
31:28
Keir Starmer. It's it's, it's Sadiq Khan in in
31:32
London. It's the denigration of
31:34
everything from our warships and our aircraft carriers to NATO
31:39
to, you know, to, to the, to the reputation of the British Army
31:42
in Afghanistan. It just seems that every,
31:44
everything connected to the United Kingdom is under some
31:46
kind of attack, either by Donald Trump himself or by the broader
31:50
MAGA movement. And, and, and that's not just
31:53
the White House directing this stuff.
31:55
There seems to be something far bigger at play.
31:57
There is a huge global disinformation campaign against
32:01
the United Kingdom, against our politics, our, our health
32:04
service, the presence of Islam in our country as a, as a
32:08
religion. There's just seems to be so many
32:10
things going on right now that seem to be used very
32:13
purposefully to whip up a kind of MAGA base, and the United
32:17
Kingdom, for some reason seems to be the foil that the
32:20
algorithms are using to try and push that narrative.
32:23
So, David, do you think the government will want this visit
32:26
to make things a bit easier for Keir Starmer I?
32:30
Think they want the visit to make things easier to discuss
32:34
the issues that are difficult between us.
32:36
The special relationship I think remains special in some respects
32:41
because the commitment that we have to one another on in the
32:45
defence, intelligence and nuclear fields continues day by
32:49
day, whatever Trump says. But of course it makes it much
32:53
more difficult to sustain. And I, I suspect, like Al I, I'm
32:57
wary of this term and always have been in, in, in my own
33:01
case, because I think it's made Britain lazy.
33:04
I think it's always made us think, oh, well, whatever
33:06
happens, the Americans will have our back.
33:09
And we now find with Trump, who doesn't share our values or our
33:13
outlook, that this isn't necessarily true.
33:15
And we are faced with an extraordinarily difficult NATO
33:18
summit in a few weeks time. And we may find out what,
33:21
whether Trump still believes in NATO.
33:23
And we, we, you know, have, have that guarantee anymore.
33:27
But I, I, I don't think that we should assume that we, it's
33:33
completely in tatters as Al describes it.
33:36
I think it's very difficult. And I think trying to manage it
33:40
through this Trump period is what we have to do.
33:43
But we are not alone. Trump isn't when Keir Starmer
33:47
isn't uniquely in Trump's sight, He happens to be, you know, the
33:51
the person who has been taking the Flack recently.
33:54
But Macron has had plenty of trouble from and Trump has
33:58
served lots of other European leaders.
34:00
One of the oddities about this president is he seems to be far
34:04
ruder about his notional allies and he is about United States's
34:08
notional opponents. And this is obviously making the
34:12
the transatlantic relationship very difficult, which is why I
34:16
think, as I said earlier, that even if Trump is, you know,
34:20
going to leave the scene in two or three years and there might
34:24
be a change, we in Europe have to recognise that that the
34:29
assumptions that we've been working on no longer hold.
34:33
We can hope that things will get better.
34:35
We can hope that in the aftermath of this visit, our
34:38
bilateral relationship will improve, or at least that the
34:41
discussions that we're having on all these difficult issues like
34:45
Russia, Ukraine, train in the Gulf may be more temperate.
34:48
But fundamentally, we know that Trump is volatile and
34:51
unreliable. And I don't think it would be at
34:54
all sensible to hang hopes on one state visit, whether it's
34:58
ours or the state visit of any other country, to assume Trump
35:02
is suddenly going to change his spot.
35:03
He's not but. Do you think you can separate
35:05
the special relationship or the diplomatic relationship from the
35:09
relationship between Trump and Starmer?
35:11
Not wholly, of course. You can't leave.
35:13
The relationship at the top has always mattered a lot.
35:17
It hasn't always been as warm as some people imagine, but what it
35:22
has been based on, much more than personalities, is a shared
35:26
view of the world and shared assumptions.
35:29
And so when Lyndon Johnson got very angry with Harold Wilson
35:34
because Harold Wilson wouldn't send troops to Vietnam, or when
35:39
Eisenhower got very cross with Eden First, the Suez episode,
35:44
the bilateral relationship between those personalities was
35:47
very strained. But the outlook, the common
35:50
assumptions, the idea we share interests between the two
35:54
countries was not fundamentally challenged.
35:57
That is the effect of Trump. And we are in a different place.
36:01
And so when I say the special relationship, I think it is now
36:05
fairly technical and covers those areas I've described.
36:09
But let's not forget, you know, Trump isn't America.
36:12
There are an awful lot of Americans out there who don't
36:15
like what he's doing. His poll numbers are terrible,
36:18
and they don't like his foreign policy, and they don't like the
36:20
way he's apparently appeasing Russia and they don't like the
36:24
way he's treating America's partners and allies.
36:28
So I think we need to keep some sense of perspective here, so.
36:32
Just finally, Julie, I mean, you know, there was a gun attack in
36:37
the hotel on Saturday nights. How?
36:40
How worried would you be about security and the King's visit?
36:45
I don't think that there really is great alarm.
36:47
You know, they would have everything put in place anyway.
36:51
They were just, I suspect Buckingham Palace yesterday as,
36:54
you know, it was all being reported.
36:55
Are they, you know, guessing if they're going to still come, but
36:57
they were just in conversation and maybe they're going to
36:59
heighten their security. But, you know, this is months in
37:02
advance planning and I think that every precaution will be
37:06
taken. I, I don't think any of us
37:08
expected Charles to King Charles to, to cancel.
37:12
But again, they're reviewing it as they should do, but I don't
37:14
think that there's any risk. Alice, is this just another
37:17
element of uncertainty? I think it's just another
37:20
element in the jeopardy that is this trip.
37:22
I mean, the timing of that security alert yesterday is
37:25
clearly, you know, very, very poor timing in terms of the the
37:28
the preparations for this visit. I don't think actually that
37:31
should materially change the the overall risk profile of the
37:35
trip. I'm sure the security is already
37:37
top notch, but I think of course, what that does
37:39
represent, it's just the, the, the sheer political divisiveness
37:43
in the United States right now that the, the toxic debate
37:46
that's taking place. And of course that that is the
37:49
context. That's the political context
37:50
into which the king is is travelling a a population who
37:55
don't seem to be supporting this president terribly strongly, who
37:58
I think are rightly judging him for the appalling actions on the
38:01
global stage, but also just the daily discourse that he engages
38:05
in. So I think I'm more concerned
38:07
about what that assassination attempt, the context from which
38:11
it emerged, rather than the attempt itself as a material to
38:15
to the security of the king. And so so David, your successor
38:18
in the British Embassy, Christian Turner, apparently
38:21
told staff that the approach was keep calm and carry on.
38:24
Would that be yours? Yes.
38:25
And I know Christian. We worked together when I was in
38:28
Washington. He'd be a very good ambassador
38:30
and very cool. Well, thank you all very much
38:32
indeed for joining us. That's the forecast.
38:35
Until next time, bye bye.