Keir Starmer engaged in a two-hour dinner with Donald Trump in New York, aiming to cultivate a favourable rapport with the Republican presidential candidate.
David Lammy, the prime minister’s foreign secretary, joined him. Lammy previously described Trump as a supporter of neo-Nazism but has since indicated a willingness to work with him in office.
Starmer and Trump are reported to have analysed the enduring alliance and collaboration between the UK and US. Downing Street refrained from providing additional commentary on other discussion points.
The prime minister, currently in New York for the UN General Assembly, was unable to arrange a meeting with the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, who remains in Washington.
Before the meeting, Starmer informed reporters: “I’ve stated multiple times that I wish to meet both candidates.” The opportunity to engage with Trump has now presented itself, which is favourable. It is clear that I still intend to engage in a discussion with Harris as well. However, the typical diary challenges have been addressed, and it is beneficial that this issue has now been resolved. Establishing a relationship between us will be essential.
“I strongly advocate for the importance of interpersonal connections in global interactions.” Understanding the identity of your counterpart in any specific country is crucial. Establishing a personal connection and engaging in face-to-face interactions is essential for effective collaboration.
Starmer’s meeting occurred shortly after the former US president conducted an extensive press conference, cautioning about a “mass invasion” and a “sudden, suffocating inundation” of millions of illegal immigrants entering the US, attributing this situation to his opponent, Harris, who had previously met with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. During the meeting, Harris indicated that Trump’s strategy regarding Russia’s war could be interpreted as capitulation.
Trump remarked regarding Starmer: “I will be meeting him in approximately an hour, so I must maintain a cordial demeanour.” I believe he exhibits a commendable level of niceness. He executed an impressive performance, achieving notable results. The current stage is preliminary, yet he has garnered significant popularity. It is still in the preliminary stages, but I will convey your regards.
When enquired about Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, Trump responded: “I think Nigel is great; I’ve known him for a long time.” He achieved a significant electoral outcome, securing a substantial number of seats, exceeding the permissible limit. They recognised his victory; however, there appears to be an unusual mechanism in place, where one may achieve wins but not necessarily secure them. Nigel exhibits exceptional qualities as an individual.
Prior to the meeting, the prime minister delivered a speech at the UN General Assembly, indicating to global leaders that Britain intends to engage in international relations with reduced “paternalism” compared to previous approaches, emphasising a strategy of increased listening and decreased speaking.
He urged both Israel and Hezbollah to reconsider their positions to avoid escalating into a broader conflict that could spiral beyond anyone’s control.
“I urge Israel and Hezbollah to cease hostilities and de-escalate the situation.” An immediate ceasefire is essential to create the necessary conditions for a diplomatic resolution, and we are collaborating with all stakeholders to achieve this objective,” he stated.
Starmer refrained from specifying the topics of discussion with Trump, particularly regarding the potential inclusion of support for Ukraine, considering the Republican candidate’s scepticism towards US financial assistance for Kyiv.
When asked if a Trump presidency would result in increased isolation for the UK globally, Starmer asserted that the “special relationship” with the US is paramount, transcending the individual in office.
“This holds significant importance,” he stated. “I believe the current strength is likely at its peak, particularly concerning the Middle East and Ukraine… The citizens of the United States will determine their preferred presidential candidate, and we will engage with the elected president, as is customary. I will refrain from making any assumptions regarding potential issues that may arise following the election.
The meeting follows remarks made by Angela Eagle, a Home Office minister, which potentially jeopardised No. 10’s diplomatic initiatives with Trump. During a fringe event at the Labour Party conference, she stated that his rhetoric had empowered racists.
Eagle indicated that Trump contributed to the generation of “vitriol” directed at migrants via social media platforms. She indicated that rightwing Tories had employed language that signalled a “yellow flashing light” to racists, utilising a “toxic discourse” in their efforts to counter the challenge from Reform UK.
In response to Eagle’s comments on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Trump expressed a dismissive attitude, stating: “Nobody knows who this random person is or cares what comes out of her mouth.” What is her identity, and what are her professional activities?
Starmer refrained from supporting Eagle when questioned on Tuesday regarding the accuracy of her statements.
During his address at the UN, Starmer advocated for the establishment of permanent African representation on the UN Security Council. Earlier in the week, he criticised Russia, one of the five permanent members, suggesting it should feel shame for its presence in the building following its invasion of Ukraine.
Starmer indicated that Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany should be included as permanent members, alongside an increase in the number of elected member seats.
He also provided an alert regarding conflict levels that are unparalleled in the history of the UN.
“In Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, and other regions,” he stated, “the predominant factor contributing to humanitarian need globally today… is conflict.”
The prime minister indicated that following two decades of advancements in addressing poverty, disease, and ill-health, war has emerged as a significant factor contributing to the stagnation of progress, characterising it as a “catastrophe made by human hands.”