International Relations and Defence Committee
Wednesday 2nd September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Staying very hard and very deeply in a series of those relations. It was often the case actually around in and around G7 when we had guest countries sort of approach to the world system is the one that the UK should prize. I do think we should be in like minded countries that the Brits, the Japanese, the Canadians a little bit less so the Indians and other other countries, those who sat outside the large regulatory blocks of the EU, the US and NAFTA.
That's a that's a sort of flexible and expanding concept at the moment. And China outside those immediate economic systems would actually sort of huddle in a bit of an inchoate way. But we'd huddle and say, actually, you know, we don't want to be pushed around too much in X, Y, z issue. So can we have a better coherence on our vital interests? Yes, I think we can. We can mobilise that.
But I wouldn't bet the house on the on the corny version I'd be, I'd be I'd be cautious about that. I don't think Carney's really betting the House on the Carney Carney version as well. I don't think Canada's going to end up in the EU, which is which is which is one thing being floated at the moment. I think we'd be a bit more careful about the structures of that. And then your final question, do we have the diplomatic service? Built for that? I mean, it's it's under pressure in terms of range and extent.
There are too many people in King Charles Street versus too many people elsewhere in the world. There's constant pressure on things like embassy estates and elsewhere. So if you ask me towards the end of the session to do a bit of blue sky thinking, in my optimum world, you would have a 0.7% on international affairs. That's outside the defence budget. And I wouldn't start with a 0.7 percent on international development. I would be investing deeply in AI security relationships, deeply in enabling better commercial relationships with the countries I've identified, doing things like AI roll out, offering our value, add strength, deploying some of that money back into UK laboratories as well, but also strengthening the diplomatic service.
And I include I'd include things like British consul in the midst of that as well. So a point, if this country has ever rich enough to go back to a point 7% GDP figure, I would completely recast it along the lines of some of the things I've suggested.
That's a that's a sort of flexible and expanding concept at the moment. And China outside those immediate economic systems would actually sort of huddle in a bit of an inchoate way. But we'd huddle and say, actually, you know, we don't want to be pushed around too much in X, Y, z issue. So can we have a better coherence on our vital interests? Yes, I think we can. We can mobilise that.
But I wouldn't bet the house on the on the corny version I'd be, I'd be I'd be cautious about that. I don't think Carney's really betting the House on the Carney Carney version as well. I don't think Canada's going to end up in the EU, which is which is which is one thing being floated at the moment. I think we'd be a bit more careful about the structures of that. And then your final question, do we have the diplomatic service? Built for that? I mean, it's it's under pressure in terms of range and extent.
There are too many people in King Charles Street versus too many people elsewhere in the world. There's constant pressure on things like embassy estates and elsewhere. So if you ask me towards the end of the session to do a bit of blue sky thinking, in my optimum world, you would have a 0.7% on international affairs. That's outside the defence budget. And I wouldn't start with a 0.7 percent on international development. I would be investing deeply in AI security relationships, deeply in enabling better commercial relationships with the countries I've identified, doing things like AI roll out, offering our value, add strength, deploying some of that money back into UK laboratories as well, but also strengthening the diplomatic service.
And I include I'd include things like British consul in the midst of that as well. So a point, if this country has ever rich enough to go back to a point 7% GDP figure, I would completely recast it along the lines of some of the things I've suggested.
11:50
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
-
-
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
I think that's very clear and very helpful, and it's probably another line of inquiry, to be honest. Just just a final comment though, isn't the behaviour of America in particular, but to some extent China creating a different response? I mean, you said that you didn't think I don't think Canada will join the EU, but this week, Mark Carney has specifically said we are starting negotiations for closer relations. And there's a sort of a general feeling that given the way America is behaving, we do need to make these relationships outside America, given that everything's transactional, just more organized and more coherent.
I mean, at least that surely is. I
I mean, at least that surely is. I
11:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
think that's the way you described it is perfect to make these, these, these relationships more organized and more coherent. I would spend a bit of time in Washington, D.C., at the sort of height of the early tariff wars with the Trump administration, where a series of countries were set down. And if you remember, the UK managed to negotiate itself the first deal outside that. And then Japan did also in the midst of it. And that was a moment where just a very practical level in Washington and elsewhere.
There was a question as to relative levels of coherence. So could key American allies, the most obvious allies, the countries, by the way, which had the least trade deficits and the least objectionable economic practices for the United States? Could they cohere a little bit? Again, lived experiences. We're all stealing each other's ventilators off the runway. So, so so, you know, that's to use that kind of horrible metaphor. But, you know, I think a bit of coherence in that respect is, is, is really important.
I just also say the following. I mean, I, I don't want to make any predictions for the US midterms. I think most predictions are the ones I'm reading. I'm not convinced by. But, you know, should there be a change of administration, it won't be there won't be a Donald Trump administration, barring some constitutional events that will excite all our energies. If you were to run a a theoretical experiment and say it looked like a Democrat administration was going to take over in the white House, there would be a stampede from European capitals to find the best relationship with that white House.
I was in one of those stampedes beforehand when the first Trump administration went to the Biden administration, and in a stampede, those European capitals and Asian capitals were clambering over each other's heads to have the best possible relationship with a with with an adopted United States. So we have to also live with that reality as well. I think sometimes we you know, we're looking for a new theory of the world, and we're looking sometimes to restate the old religions because we are a, you know, in international affairs, regard the importance of civility and engagement as good things and keeping that going as a good thing.
But we've got to, you know, we've got to bring we can't just bring our our rolled up scrolls and parchments to what is actually a sort of knife fight renegotiation as well. We've got we've got to really sweat those personal relationships. See UK value add, as I say, because, you know, in periods where the established road tracks of policy are in place and everyone accepts the the core propositions, then Britain is very effective at running the system, running the processes, investing sufficiently where we're we're less effective when there's a sinkhole in the ground or when the train tracks have been completely disrupted.
And finding another way to get to the ultimate destination and the ultimate destination in all of this is to deliver more effectively for UK interests and the British people at home.
There was a question as to relative levels of coherence. So could key American allies, the most obvious allies, the countries, by the way, which had the least trade deficits and the least objectionable economic practices for the United States? Could they cohere a little bit? Again, lived experiences. We're all stealing each other's ventilators off the runway. So, so so, you know, that's to use that kind of horrible metaphor. But, you know, I think a bit of coherence in that respect is, is, is really important.
I just also say the following. I mean, I, I don't want to make any predictions for the US midterms. I think most predictions are the ones I'm reading. I'm not convinced by. But, you know, should there be a change of administration, it won't be there won't be a Donald Trump administration, barring some constitutional events that will excite all our energies. If you were to run a a theoretical experiment and say it looked like a Democrat administration was going to take over in the white House, there would be a stampede from European capitals to find the best relationship with that white House.
I was in one of those stampedes beforehand when the first Trump administration went to the Biden administration, and in a stampede, those European capitals and Asian capitals were clambering over each other's heads to have the best possible relationship with a with with an adopted United States. So we have to also live with that reality as well. I think sometimes we you know, we're looking for a new theory of the world, and we're looking sometimes to restate the old religions because we are a, you know, in international affairs, regard the importance of civility and engagement as good things and keeping that going as a good thing.
But we've got to, you know, we've got to bring we can't just bring our our rolled up scrolls and parchments to what is actually a sort of knife fight renegotiation as well. We've got we've got to really sweat those personal relationships. See UK value add, as I say, because, you know, in periods where the established road tracks of policy are in place and everyone accepts the the core propositions, then Britain is very effective at running the system, running the processes, investing sufficiently where we're we're less effective when there's a sinkhole in the ground or when the train tracks have been completely disrupted.
And finding another way to get to the ultimate destination and the ultimate destination in all of this is to deliver more effectively for UK interests and the British people at home.
10:15
10:15