British relations with America in the first Trump term were a missed opportunity. Britain’s then Conservative government failed to take advantage of Trump’s presidency, especially when it came to leaving the European Union. Trump’s offer of a team of trade lawyers to assist British negotiators was declined by Theresa May’s government, and talks on a free trade agreement between Britain and America broke down in part after the British Government said that the Americans were not sufficiently committed to environmental protection. Why this is a matter for a trade deal remains mystifying to this day.
These mistakes must not be repeated. Luckily, so far, Trump has spared the UK from the most aggressive tariffs, and he has refrained from singling-out the British government for criticism or mockery. Britain’s new Labour prime minister has managed to handle himself reasonably well with Trump so far, and talk has returned of an Anglo-American trade deal being agreed in short order. This would be a political coup for Keir Starmer, who may achieve a trade deal that his Tory rivals could not, and it would significantly change the dynamics of the Western world, taking Britain closer to America, away from the EU.
Britain should exploit the opportunities for cooperation and mutual benefit before her, but should do so with a sceptical eye. It has become a cliché to quote Lord Palmerston’s observation that Britain does not have “eternal allies” but instead “eternal interests,” however, it is as true today as it was in the 19th century. America’s quality as an ally to the UK has varied immensely over the decades. While it makes sense to take advantage of being Trump’s favourite Western country—and his Anglophilia is genuine—this must be done with a keen eye on maintaining British sovereignty and British interests.
Achieving this will be harder. Britain’s political class does not know what British interests are, nor how to achieve them. While they partly reflect the political character of the government of the day—see Boris Johnson’s curious embrace of both Net Zero internationalism and a swaggering departure from the EU—beneath all these policy fads is a political class that doesn’t really know what Britain is for and how she should conduct herself.
The return of Trump is beneficial as it could be the force that finally brings much-needed clarity to British politics about the condition of the British state and how it is failing to serve the British people. If America is going to be a less kindly ally than in previous decades, and less willing to offer indefinite security, then Britain needs to rediscover its eternal interests and how to protect them.
British politicians should take inspiration from America First when it comes to domestic policy. This is the guiding principle that the American government should serve the interests of the American people above all else, including many post-war norms which have become part of Western governance in the modern era. A Britain First economic policy would look different, but it may be thematically similar.
Britain must embrace economic deregulation as much as possible and aim to reach a similar GDP per capita to that of the USA. It should aim to have the cheapest industrial energy prices in the Western world. If re-armament is a political priority, then every regulatory hurdle that stands in its way should be repealed. This means repealing the net zero policies which have destroyed Britain’s heavy industry, especially the steel sector. The decline of British steel is not about high labour costs or even subsidised Chinese steel. It is a story of the deliberate overregulation and taxation of industries of strategic importance, in the name of climate leadership.
Energy abundance underpins economic recovery. If reindustrialisation is going to become a reality, then Britain must reverse its bans on offshore licences for oil and gas and onshore fracking, as well as exploit the Sealion field by the Falkland Islands. Minerals and metals like lithium, gold, and copper sit underneath British soil, stubbornly uncollected. These must be retrieved.
It also means the outright abolition of Environmental, Social, and Governance policies in the financial sector, which have penalised Britain’s defence sector, preventing large businesses from raising capital, and even leading to the politicised de-banking of smaller firms. Britain should follow the American reaction against the diversity industry by scrapping the anti-meritocratic web of diversity policies which have infected public and private bureaucracies. It should also rediscover the merits of tax competition and pull out of the OECD’s tax cartel which sets Corporation Tax at 15%, which erodes national sovereignty and national prosperity.
Diplomatically, Britain should remember the political nature of international law, and never follow it at the expense of British interests. The government’s decision to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is a perfect example of where following international law religiously ends. Following a vote in the United Nations and an advisory motion at the International Court of Justice in 2019, Britain’s ownership of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean was deemed illegal. The vote in question was an explicitly political affair. Mauritius, which claims the islands, was supported by Russia, China, Venezuela, and Iran, in a diplomatic campaign which was explicitly focused on decolonisation and reparations, entirely political concepts. The EU’s Member States abstained on the matter, which was reported at the time as a reckoning or punishment for Brexit.
Despite the transparently political nature of this decision, Britain’s current government believes that if international law demands Britain damage herself, she must obey. It is leading to the humiliating situation where Britain pays Mauritius to receive British territory and pays the rent on an airbase used by the Americans. This attitude is entirely alien to the new regime in America, and Britain will remain vulnerable on the world stage if she persists with it.
Britain must seek sovereignty through prosperity. This is an ambitious agenda which requires a near-revolution in British governance to achieve over the next four years. Britain will stand taller on the world’s stage with a GDP per capita of $80,000, instead of today’s meagre $49,000. If this doesn’t happen, the prognosis will be bleak. Brain drain, capital flight, the degradation of the public realm and erosion of social trust, and a bankrupt economic model built on mass immigration. The stakes could not be higher.
Regrettably, it is probably beyond the capability of the current government to change course. While Keir Starmer has made a reasonable effort at engaging with Trump, and his ministers are trying to make some headway on economic deregulation, he is committed to the total imposition of international law and environmentalism, two of the greatest impediments to British prosperity. His government is also embarking on a self-destructive round of tax-rises and labour regulations which will erode job creation and business expansion.
A glimmer of hope lies in the possibility of a trade agreement between the U.S. and the UK. This would provide political and diplomatic energy into reducing regulation and moving Britain away from the EU’s failing economic model. Recognising that the U.S. will pursue its own interests belligerently should be a relief, rather than a burden. It ends the comfortable and unsustainable lies that many European countries told themselves about the post-war order. If Britain is to thrive in the era of Trumpism, it must embrace reality, and maximise its advantages where it can. This means taking advantage of Trump’s instinctive sympathy to Britain, while also restoring its independent military capability, particularly when it comes to its nuclear deterrent.
Britain’s greatest asset in an unpredictable modern era is its oldest strength: parliamentary sovereignty. Outside the European Union, British democracy has been restored by the British people. If Parliament wishes to revive British prosperity it can. The issue is whether it wants to.
