UK-US Bilateral Relationship

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK-US bilateral relationship.

It is a pleasure to serve under your tutelage, Sir John, and let me introduce you to a fine Scots word: fankle. It means a tangle, or a confusion. President Donald Trump knows what it means, because his mother was a Scot from the Isle of Lewis, and the White House team know one when they see one. And they see one right here in Britain, as our foreign policy is disjointed, dysfunctional and callow.

The White House has fired the first shots in a trade war, with tariffs and the threat of tariffs shaping policy. The EU is under this sword of Damocles, but we could avoid the sort of damage to key exports, such as Scotch whisky, that we saw when Mr Trump was last atop Pennsylvania Avenue.

Overall, the UK enjoys a balanced scorecard on trade with the US, although our preponderance of services over goods could yet make us a target. Should we side with the EU? The UK exported £179 billion-worth of goods and services to the US in 2023 and we imported £112 billion-worth of US goods. Looking at individual countries, the US is by far our largest export market; Germany is a distant second, with an export market about a third the size of America’s.

In today’s world, America innovates, China imitates, Europe regulates and Britain prevaricates. Just as President Trump is freeing US industry from its shackles, here Labour is imposing more taxes, more red tape and self-harming nonsense such as the ruinous Employment Rights Bill—the union barons’ charter. Labour wants to offshore decision making to courts, to outsourced and unelected lawyers, and to take dictation from the EU. And they want to force through the Chagos fiasco, Britain’s biggest capitulation since Singapore in 1942—although we did at least fire some shots 83 years ago.

Can the Minister offer some reassurance today that instead Britain will get off its knees, use the freedoms of Brexit, and stride confidently and boldly into the world, striking our own deals? The Russian bear is scratching at our back door, we feel the hot breath of the Chinese dragon on our neck and under President Trump the American eagle is starting to spread its wings.

Among all that, which way to turn, for our Foreign Secretary seems like a cork in a raging sea? Labour’s instincts in time of trouble are to run for the skirts of nanny Europe, but Europe is fading, with sclerotic growth amid political turmoil. Its two great powers, France and Germany, are rudderless and drifting. And although Labour would have us believe that it is resetting relations with the EU, the reality is that our position is pathetic.

The Prime Minister cannot say what he wants from Europe, while they have their invoice already made out; they want a youth mobility scheme that would put yet more pressure on our own children who are seeking their first job. And Europe has avaricious eyes on that old sacrificial lamb—fish from our pristine waters—and to hell with British coastal communities who rely upon the sea’s bounty.

Also, we are cosying up to China. The Chancellor is fresh back from “Operation Kowtow” with a few cheap baubles, despite China’s anti-competitive trade practices, even as the diggers move to build Beijing’s London embassy astride critical data cables. We risk feeding the dragon that one day may immolate us.

What then of the United States, which for so long has been our ally under the umbrella of the much-vaunted “special relationship”? Surely the choice is obvious, yet it would mean Labour dealing with a man that it dispatched activists to defeat in the US election. He is, to quote that master diplomat the Foreign Secretary,

“a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath. A tyrant in a toupee.”

I will also quote Labour’s choice of ambassador to Washington DC, who called the returning President a “bully”, “reckless” and a “danger to the world.” The Damascene conversion that our diplomats have lately undergone means that Mr Trump is now “a nice man”. And as for KKK jibes? Apparently, they are “old news” that will matter not a jot on Capitol Hill. However, they neither forgive nor forget; the die is cast. What is said cannot be unsaid by fawning. And although the Foreign Secretary boasts of having a meal with the President, perhaps the Minister who is here today could confirm both how little access the Foreign Secretary had to the President and just how massive the humble pie was that he was forced to pretend he enjoyed.

Huge though those problems are, they are nothing compared with the Chagos deal, which will see us cede the strategic joint UK-US Diego Garcia base to distant Mauritius and pay billions to lease it back. We saw the unseemly haste with which Labour wanted to push that deal through, in the face of warnings that Mauritius was moving ever closer to both expansive China and malign Iran.

Now the Foreign Secretary is moving at pace again, scuttling to try to explain to Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the deal is just the job to see off a legal opinion—not a decision—that there might be an issue with the Chagos islands and Diego Garcia in particular. Yes, negotiations were begun by the previous Government but we did not conclude them. We would certainly not have considered the ludicrous terms on offer, where we take something of ours, give it away and then pay through the nose to borrow it back.

The Americans already see what this is: a supine Britain, afraid of a possible legal setback, falling over itself to avoid offending a foreign Government. It is nothing short of a national humiliation. We have a Labour Government frightened of their own shadow, happier to be soft-touch law takers not lawmakers, who would have this sovereign Parliament infantilised and push around by bewigged silks and the Brussels secretariat.

This Government are more worried about the price of Oasis tickets than the cost of making our elected representatives subservient to quangos and arm’s length bodies, and now to the National Assembly in Port Louis, Mauritius, which is further from Diego Garcia than London is from Rome. Aboard his luxury jet—he seems more interested in a Gulfstream G700 than the G7 countries—whisking him to the US, the Foreign Secretary might consider a quote from Mr Rubio:

“Compromise that’s not a solution is a waste of time.”

Against that sort of clear thinking, our toadying diplomats look like battery toys plugged into the mains: out of their depth, out of touch, out of control. China knows the true value of bases such as Diego Garcia. It is even building artificial islands—the great wall of sand—in the South China sea as unsinkable aircraft carriers. The US will rightly torpedo Labour’s woeful Chagos sell-out.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. Does he agree that, despite the best efforts of the Labour Government, there is a long-standing and enduring relationship between the USA, Scotland and the rest of the UK? More importantly from our perspective as Scottish MPs, Tartan Week in New York is a good example of that strong relationship between the US and Scotland.

[John Cooper]

I agree completely. I was privileged to join my hon. Friend at Tartan Week in America, which is a key showcase for all things Scottish. We are lucky that President Trump is effectively an Ayrshire businessman, since he owns a golf course in Scotland.

If the Chagos deal were in effect vetoed by America, would our Foreign Secretary dare continue, in the event of such mortification? What price Downing Street’s hostage-to-fortune claim that the Foreign Secretary will still be in post at the next election? If their 3-amp fuses do not blow too soon, perhaps our underpowered team might get to discuss defence with America. The US wants NATO to pull its budgetary weight. Might we hear today where Labour are with plans to lift defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, given the first casualty of their mishandling of the economy has been growth? Will it happen, and when?

If we are moving ever closer to faceless and distant Strasbourg and Brussels, as yesterday’s visit by the PM surely signposts, we ought to consider Ireland, which sums up America’s issue with European freeloading on defence. Ireland is not in NATO, yet is under the aegis of the British-supplied nuclear deterrent. The undersea cables that see US tax dollars converted to euros and piled into the coffers of Dublin are at risk from Putin’s shadow fleet.

Those data cables are as critical today as were the convoys from America and Canada during the battle of the Atlantic, and every bit as vulnerable. The country’s only defence, since Ireland has zero underwater capability, is Britain—the same Britain Ireland is happy to traduce in international courts over the troubles. We have a rare window of opportunity with Mr Trump and his White House team, but the puerile insults keep coming. The titanic struggle playing out now is between the oldest superpower, the United States, and the newest, China. Europe, prickling with full outrage at the new US President, is sidelined. It is, at best, indifferent to the UK and wants to make even new defence agreements transactional, all about commercial deals, even as the fires of conflict blaze. China need not be our enemy, but it is not our friend. Its industrial heft means genuine competition in many areas is impossible. Its annual production of batteries is sufficient for global needs—no wonder UK plans for a gigafactory have come to nothing.

We must seek every advantage we can, and the US offers the most fertile ground. We speak the same language, George Bernard Shaw’s adage that we are two nations separated by a common language notwithstanding. The late unpleasantness of the American revolution is in the rear-view mirror. We have a shared history of standing for liberty, and our transatlantic co-operation on defence is unmatched. US forces are the big stick; they see ours as a precision scalpel.

Labour does not lack for numbers in this Parliament. Is there no one in their serried ranks who can see that an anglophile US President, a man of immense pragmatism, offers us a chance to form a mutually beneficial relationship and perhaps a full trade deal—or are they the new model terracotta army, which looks impressive from a distance, but which sits mute, eyes painted on, as their leaders tread the same old worn and fruitless path to Brussels and show a bit of ankle to China? Enough of Oliver Twist: “Please Mr Xi and Ms von der Leyen, may we have some more?”

In 1942, Prime Minister Winston Churchill boarded a flying boat on Loch Ryan in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency, destination the United States. His message then was,

“let us go forward together”. —[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]

We should deliver the same message to Washington today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cooper]

I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part today. I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the aviation tragedies in America. Our hearts are with all those affected. It is clear from this debate that the strength of our relationship with America matters a great deal to us.

I want to pick up on one or two Members’ contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who told us that the birds and the bees have, apparently, been upgraded to the rhinos and the sloths. I shall resist saying too much about Orangemen, but it suffices to say that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not, I suspect, a fan of fake tan.

I also thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). He knows, better than most of us, the importance of immediate action. We must take that message away when we consider defence spending. We need to urgently see where we are with that.

I conclude by saying that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might take the message to America that we are not junior partners. Rather than us becoming the 51st state of the USA, the United States might, in fact, like to come back in under the furled umbrella of the British empire.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK-US bilateral relationship.