The Brits are SO smart.

[MsAmerica]

Playing Trump like a fiddle, knowing his weakness for flattery and star power. Starmer begins by presenting a letter of invitation from Charles III.

Donald Trump given letter from King Charles on Ukraine war with special 'unprecedented' invite
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/donald-trump-given-letter-from-king-charles-on-ukraine-war-with-special-unprecedented-invite/ar-AA1zVHbC

UK Prime Minister Starmer Presents Trump With An Invitation From King Charles For A State Visit: "This Is Really Special"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/02/27/uk_prime_minister_starmer_presents_trump_with_an_invitation_from_king_charles_for_a_state_visit_this_is_really_special.html

Well clearly Trump said "I don't care and I won't back you at the UN if you decide not to settle".

Why should Trump care how the UK settles its international law problems? Did some imagine he would extend his power when he gets his lease and all the military power he has to bear?

No. Team me.

I can’t stand Trump either, and his intellectual capabilities are somewhat….limited, but of course he knew that the invitation was designed to flatter and persuade. He’s playing along because it suits him - he will love rubbing shoulders with royalty, but don’t think he won’t be aware of how smarmy the mention of the ‘very special invitation’ sounded! He’s not that stupid. He’s very good at business transactions, which is how he approaches life and politics. Everything he does is to gain advantage. He’ll be aggressive, if he’s being ‘attacked’ or if he thinks that will be a successful strategy, but he’ll also play along with being hugely patronised, if it suits his ultimate aim. He won’t believe it’s sincere, because he assumes everyone is as manipulative as he is, and in a lot of cases, he’s right, of course!

I'm no Starmer fan, but I actually thought he did well, managing an unpredictable but powerful world leader.

It's diplomacy, not grovelling, and he (and King Charles) totally understood the brief here.

I'll try to find the link, but I read an article about how Starmer's team have been building the relationship with Trump since before either of them were even elected, based on the expectation that they both might be.

What's that expression, 'Keep your friends close, your enemies even closer'? There's not point pushing Trump away, that's even more dangerous - they need to work with him, even if that means giving the illusion of pandering to him.

I also read that the No.10 team have been prepping and role-playing out scenarios for this meeting for weeks (if not months). That will have included endless analysis of Trump, his style, his responses to certain things (e.g. royal pomp etc) and also coaching Starmer in body language and dealing with the infamous Trump power handshake. Starmer putting his hand on Trump's should is a countering power move.

At the end of the day it's all about the 'optics' and the headlines. Most people won't bother to watch the whole dull news footage. However the global news media have tended to report Starmer's visit as a success, the global headlines and chosen photos are good and Starmer has emerged as a strong European leader, alongside Macron.

I'm not a Starmer supporter, but I'm relieved by what I saw.

It's not binding.

We're going ahead because Starmer is more riled up by Badenoch than taxpayers stumping the billions

Now you can see it's not binding wouldn't you rather your money go to foreign aid to stop volatility and help children or military?

By giving Russia a chunk of Ukraine AND rare minerals?

Trump wishing Churchill and gets Starmer

Trump wishing Queen and gets Charles

Trump wishing Great Britain… and gets whatever hell we live in now, just another lower rung on the race to the bottom of the economic ladder

The invitation to the state visit is very clever too - it forced Trump to publicly voice his love and support for the UK, but in reality this 'state visit' is unlikely to be what he imagines.
For a start, he's been invited to join the King in Scotland, which is perfectly reasonable since Trump has investments/golf clubs etc there. However that does mean it will avoid any large scale gold carriage/ streets lined with protesters in London. With any luck he'll be quickly shuffled along a road with pre-vetted cheering Scottish supporters (or actors!!) and then ensconced somewhere remote like Balmoral where Sophie and Edward will be rolled out to support the King.

Or is it to save Starmer the embarrassment of large scale uncontrolled pro Palestine protests in London that will prove the point

If Starmer can get in there, he can gently, slowly, persuade Trump of the importance of keeping Europe on side.

Badenoch troubles Starmer about as much as a fly would, have you seen her performances at PMQ’s? She’s not a serious politician and is absolutely no threat.
Unfortunately, given our history of empire building, future leaders have to clear up the mess made by their predecessors, Johnson tried repeatedly to ignore or circumvent international law and treaties and look how that turned out. There are many other things at play in terms of the Chagos Islands, it isn’t as straightforward as you’re trying to make it appear.

Probably both. And maybe lots of other things too. Regardless it was absolutely the right thing to do. You catch far more flies with sugar than vinegar.

We absolutely have to do all we can to advocate for Ukraine. We owe them big time. If we have to humble ourselves and flatter Trump then so be it.

I don’t think even Trump is delusional enough to wish for two dead people is he??

Stroke his ego and get him onside, who cares, the end justifies the means.

I missed this somewhere along the line, but can someone tell me what Macron's contribution is/was, as I see his name mentioned in the thread as being on the same page as Starmer or something.

I agree. The British diplomatic team has done its job, which has been made harder because it's Starmer and a Labour government needing to do business following past public statements about him.

Trump is all about personality. If Boris were still PM he'd have got 'the deal' by now because they genuinely get on.

Starmer's visit was good for UK.

Metaphorical obvs.

Also a good point

The thing that struck me was how the letter from King Charles was signed in a way that looked like the executive orders Trump delighted in signing and showing the press when he entered office. I don't believe that was a coincidence! It's all about mirroring things Trump likes, and of course it was perfect for holding up to show the cameras (all about the 'optics' again)!

@LadyBracknellsHandbagg I don't bother with PMQs he's far too irritating and the inability to answer a single question is beyond bothering with.

Look at Lammy as quoted below on it being stopped on Trump's say so.

It can absolutely not go ahead. So why do you want to pay billions for it over foreign aid or military. Surely loyalty to a party isn't worth that to you is it?

That very much depends how many rare minerals Ukraine actually has. If Zelenskyy's offering him half of fuck all, and playing Trump who thinks he's playing him, then good for him.

That could be pretty dire for Ukraine. The areas are assessed, US workers leave and then no security

I rather think the state visit is meant to distract Trump and we Brits from the deeper currents.

Starmer is reported to have “slashed” or “defunded” foreign aid which buys us goodwill across the globe- that soft power with other nations especially in the global south which is on an upswing. This is not good.

What is even worse, those funds have been repurposed to boost defence spending because Starmer wants an “Iron Dome” (like Israel has) for the U.K.

Who developed and sells the Iron Dome mobile intercept missile launchers and kill missiles? Who owns the intellectual property for these? The USA. They aren’t going to send them to the U.K. for free like they do for Israel as part of an aid package. We are going to be paying full price plus probably a surcharge that helps fund the missiles, bits and bobs sent to Israel.

That means billions of our tax £s every year going directly into the pockets of US Arms dealers, who then give Trump his cut when they pay $ taxes on their massive profits.

So, we

• buy a brand new shiny but very expensive defensive weaponry system with a very expensive logistics tail making us more dependent on the US
• lose decades of goodwill amongst the up and coming global south
• have less defence money to go towards joint projects with the EU

Starmer has probably done this sweetheart deal to avoid the trade tariffs Trump threatened and is, in my opinion, a fool for doing so.

Mauritius has no empirical claim to Chagos any more than any other country has. It was bundled up in a two for 1 deal by the French and has no relationship beyond being in the same ocean. If we want to clear up colonialism the correct thing to do would be to hand it back to the Chagossians who could govern and determine its future. That’s not on the table. Instead we could offer compensation and/or British citizenship and resettlement here for those who wanted it (around 10k Chagossians so very doable). I fail to see why Mauritius, who are firmly in bed with people who hate us, should be given billions of pounds for an island they have never owned in any accepted sense of the word.

Canada are playing Trump too. They managed to get him to reduce a set of tariffs last week by re announcing a set of measures they announced months ago. Everyone knows how this works.

He’s an easily manipulated idiot and world leaders have all figured this out. Putin’s been doing it since Trump’s last term

✊🏻🤓👍🏻
Well played Kier.

That's an insightful post @LoremIpsumCici

Concerning too, but matches the thread title more than focusing on the theatre of a letter and flattery