Starmer's meeting with Trump was a success

Many people in the UK were anxious about prime minister Keir Starmer's meeting with US president Donald Trump today. With so much going on between Ukraine, a trade deal, tariffs and the Chagos islands, there is a lot to be concerned about.

Starmer's performance was, maybe surprisingly, quite good. It probably didn't hurt that the meeting with Trump started with a letter from His Majesty the King, inviting Trump for a second visit to the UK - an unprecedented invitation that Trump felt rather flattered to receive. The king surely deployed his soft power and it did seem to smooth things to a great start.

On his part, Starmer got most of what he came for. Trump made a somewhat vague claim about defending the British in Ukraine should peacekeeping forces be deployed - something which he however said would not be necessary. America's presence in the region to mine minerals will be enough to keep a lasting peace - or so the president believes. Starmer also cleverly balanced his stance on Russia with not directly confronting the US president, who recently called Zelensky a 'dictator'.

On trade, Starmer emphasised the strength of the relationship between the UK and the USA. Not only does the US have a little surplus with the UK, but both economies rank in the top two countries to invest in, top two countries for university, and have a tech sector bigger than one trillion dollars (the only two western countries to boast this). Perhaps most importantly, Trump said that a deal with the UK is being worked on "as we speak", and that a good deal that benefits both nations will be announced very soon. By the sound of it, the UK is well out of the president's firing line, who just yesterday threatened the EU with 25% tariffs. Another "Brexit dividend", then.

Lastly, when asked about Chagos Trump hinted at backing the deal.

We must be honest: Starmer performed very well on his first in-person meeting with the US president and both countries stand to benefit from a strong and thriving relationship.

The UK needs more, not less, austerity

First of all let me say that this is a hill I’m willing to die on. In fact, when I hit “publish” and Starmer’s thought police inevitably come knocking on my door, I will proudly tell them that I regret none of what I’m about to write. My goal with this article is to divide my readers into two groups: the ones who love austerity (most of you will fall into this category by the time I’m done brainwashing you) and the ones who never have, and never will, understand the intricacies of primary school maths. Let’s start with a definition: what is austerity? Austerity is a broad term used to refer to policies that reduce the deficit/debt of a country, either via spending cuts, increased taxation, or both. The objective is to drive the deficit (and ultimately the debt) down, something that can hardly be argued is a bad thing to do, especially in countries that face the challenges of a rapidly ageing population. Quick note for everyone: the deficit is the difference between what the state...

Introduction

Each one of us has a set of guiding principles that shape our thought. These may be principles we have blindly inherited from our family, surroundings, or cultural exposure, or they may be ideas we have spent countless hours actively thinking about and debating, maybe even changing our mind a few times along the way before ultimately settling on a set of core principles we felt comfortable with. Regardless of where your principles come from, or how you came to holding them dear, I believe that the vast majority of us have at least some of these in common, and that it is very rare for someone to have a completely unoverlapping set of core beliefs with the rest of the population. Extremes do exist, of course, but I (maybe naively) believe that most people are good-natured, and that at least on the theoretical plane common ground can be found with almost anyone. Before we get to my core beliefs, I should say three things. The first is that core principles can translate differently into ac...

Italy’s love for the big state is a cultural remnant of fascism

Today we are going to make Italians mad. And no, we will not be breaking spaghetti – something that my Italian family has been doing for generations, no, centuries, before TikTok videos started circulating claiming that Italians don’t break spaghetti. We do, in fact, break our spaghetti, just like any sane person with a functioning brain would do when the spaghetti clearly doesn't fit into the pot. I actually used to sometimes not break my spaghetti, but now I always do so out of spite: it gives me both physical and emotional pleasure to know that the Italian gods are frowning upon my heartless breaking of spaghetti. As much as I would love to talk about how only people living in a hopeless country could get brutally angry about other people’s freedom to break spaghetti, and how this relates to Italy still being a fundamentally fascist-loving country at heart, the topic I suggest for today is the following: the link between Italians loving the big state and Italy having experienc...

Puzzlepolitics

Search This Blog