United Kingdom: Global Position

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Howell. On this occasion, as on many others in his long career, he has shown himself to be one of Parliament’s thought leaders. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on this pleasant family occasion.

Disraeli warned us of those who fall into their anecdotage. I hope the House will forgive me if I offer one anecdote from my own experience as Minister of State in the Foreign Office. When I was the first British Minister to return to Aden in 1990 after our rather disgraceful scuttle from that place in 1967, leaving our local allies in the lurch, I was given in my briefing a saying from the area of that time of final British retreat. The saying was this:

“It is always better to be the enemy of the British than their friend. If you are their enemy, there is the possibility of being bought. If you are their friend, there is the certainty of being sold’’.


That is the way it goes with retreating empires. It is, one might say, something the friends of the United States are now learning, or have learned, from the end of the Vietnam War onwards, via Kabul and now to Ukraine. Once a nation, still immensely powerful though it may be, decides for better or worse that it has had enough of overseas adventures, its allies had better watch out: as Taiwan should now watch out, as Israel should now watch out, and as Europe, Japan and South Korea must watch out.

As Robert Tombs wrote eloquently in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, there have been plenty of warning signs, which we in Europe have ignored. Trumpism expresses the turning point in a style that would have shocked previous Presidents, but however expressed, something irrevocable which was a long time in the making has now been done. America is going home. The structures it supported and which its friends took for granted can no longer be relied upon. Trust has been broken in a way that cannot be recreated.

Doubtless, it will not always be quite so difficult as now. Trump will not last for ever: he will not be exempt from Enoch Powell’s law that all political careers end in failure. But his successors will not be able to recreate the status quo, even if they wanted to, and it seems unlikely that they would want to. Now, we in Britain have to find those who most closely share the same real interests as ourselves and build alliances on this shared interest. First and foremost, those who share our interests are our neighbours in Europe, all under threat from Mr Putin.

After Suez, our last big adventure in imperialism, when an infinitely more powerful imperial US cracked the whip and told us to behave, we and France drew different conclusions. Broadly, we decided to stick to the US, albeit as a very junior partner, and France went with Europe. Now we will have no choice other than to become a little more Gaullist. Doing what we can, of course, to keep relations with the USA as good as we possibly can, we have to cast our defence and industrial lot back in with our neighbours. I do not mean by trying to rejoin the EU: that bus has departed. We must also make the best possible technological and defence-industrial alliances that we can elsewhere, notably with Japan, Turkey, South Korea and, if possible, India, as well as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We also have to maximise our Commonwealth network, as my noble friend so eloquently put it.

My final point, however, is my most important. To make ourselves safe, we have to make ourselves richer. Our position ultimately depends on our wealth. We have a lamentable debt situation, including, as Roger Bootle has pointed out, in the decline of our net overseas assets. We have to strengthen and change the nature of our economy. I do not think we have yet begun to realise the scale of change required if we are to be able to defend ourselves. It is not 2.5% or 2.6%; it will be much more. It will mean profound changes in our society. We have a sort of consensus on defence at present among the Westminster parties, but do we have the social cohesion to accept the burdens that we are going to have to carry? Can we find the people to volunteer for the radically reformed and enlarged armed services we will need? Do we have the industrial muscle still to rebuild our defence industries?

We are going to need a new national unity if we are to succeed. Success cannot be taken for granted, but perhaps this ancient House, just a little distanced—as it should be—from the delights of short-term political infighting, might be one place where the building of a new national consensus might begin.

Chagos Islands

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hope not. I do not see it as political bickering, actually; it is a legitimate debate. These are important decisions and I am very happy to be held to account for the decisions that we are taking. The noble Lord is right, however, to alert us to the plight of many small islands across the world that are suffering from the impact of climate change. That is why this Government have a commitment to doing everything we can to reduce our carbon emissions.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the net result of the negotiations has been to introduce instability? The word is out to the Mauritian Government that if they go back to the original deal and ask for more money, they will get more money. This insecurity will be very damaging. If we now abandon the foolish deal that the Government have reached under instruction from President Trump, will we not look rather foolish and rather abject?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

No. Like the previous Government, we think that this situation needed to be resolved in a way that gave security for the future. We have a deal that will last at least 99 years. It is far better to deal with that ahead of any binding ruling, where the UK was likely to lose support, than to wait for a binding ruling and negotiate from a position that would have been far weaker.