The Sylvan special relationship debate considered the following motion:
The UK should not have a special relationship with the Trump administration.
The debate took place on Monday 3rd February. Julian Meek proposed the motion and Lo Luong Lo opposed it.
The proposition arguing we should not have a special relationship
The proposer began by questioning whether the special relationship exists. Marie Antoinette had a special relationship with the people and Henry VIII with his wives. The US has a lot of nostalgia. What right do the UK have for it – do we have a superiority complex over other nations? Do we hanker for the Empire? Sore losers from the war of independence? Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar would be more apt. What are our principles and values as a sovereign country? All solutions need to be for one world, and not dictate the rules. President Bush and Tony Blair got us into trouble, with many lives lost. Trump sees himself as a peacemaker, but do we need a special relationship for world peace?
The UK should play our own role in our own way. What would the consequences be if we don’t have the relationship – can we have relationships with the world? We don’t have a common language with the US. At Speaker’s Corner I heard that the US isn’t a country, it’s a mass meeting. Trump offers free hamburgers at his rallies. What would we get from Trump – it would be like speed dating RFK Jr, Musk and Trump. We can’t define it and it has no value.
The opposition against the special relationship debate motion
We need to define the special relationship, not as a myth. A close political, diplomatic, cultural, economic and military relationship. It dates back from historical ties and the World Wars. The UK benefits in intelligence gathering, defence and access to US politicians. The US gets intelligence reach into new areas from the UK. I oppose this for two reasons: 1) effective foreign policy requires a long-term perspective and 2) the risks of ending the special relationship outweigh the benefits. We have had strains on the relationship over the years.
Yet the Marshall Plan strengthened it, and the Reagan-Thatcher bond endured. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine strengthened ties within Nato. The US did not want war Falklands, but rather a diplomatic solution. Many in Britain did not support the Iraq war. Trump’s first term threatened Nato. We need shared long-term goals and prospects, and work out short-term issues. We need strengthened shared security including cyber, economic prosperity via trade and investment. The US wants to lead, the UK wants to influence.
The risk of ending the special relationship outweighs the benefits. We get access to advanced weaponry and defence capabilities. The US has committed to defending the UK, we would be gone without it. Could we go with India or China instead? Rachel Reeves hailed £600m in investment from China, yet we get billions from the US. We have no trade deal with India five years after Brexit. Would we have sovereignty if we couldn’t defend our country? While the relationship isn’t perfect, that can be said about any relationship. Both sides need to adjust and manage expectations. The US must accept different cultural views and can’t bully the UK. The UK should push back when it can. We should re-set the relationship not end it.
Floor speeches from the audience of the special relationship debate
The UK’s future lies with Europe – Trump will put tariffs on everyone and does not care about Ukraine, too far away. The MAGA movement is anti liberal democracy, and there may not be a 2028 election in the US. We should avoid emotional arguments and need a longer-term view. We have had varied strengths of relationships between leaders, but the behind-the-scenes elements really deliver the value. Diplomacy occurs between states, not individuals, and the American people chose Trump. He has it right when saying we need to defend ourselves. We could be attacked, particularly on the cyber front. Trump has some respect for British grandeur. Would an American debating club have said no to a relationship with Liz Truss? He won’t last forever and we need to suck it up. We survived the first four year term with him, the sky didn’t fall. Americans aren’t all crazy!
The UK can try to influence the US and mediate between Trump and Europe, sharing the difficult messages. Could we downgrade the relationship to transactional for a period? What if his sons get in? America has no allies, only interests. We share values with the world’s most powerful country in an ever more dangerous world. The UK is not considered what we once were – a lap dog. Putin works off of Hitler’s playbook, a real threat.
The opposer’s rebuttal
We have a rational for a long-term relationship between nations, not individuals. The special relationship endured past Trump’s first term, and he will go after four years. While easy to end, it would be very hard to rebuild the relationship. The world is getting more dangerous, and both the US and UK have benefited from it. Even though Trump is dreadful, there’s no need to terminate the relationship. There have been deep cultural, economic and military ties over centuries. We have shared democratic values in good and bad times, and we can’t let Trump alter our course. We need to respect each other’s systems – we can re-set the relationship but not end it.
The proposer’s closing speech
The Sylvans have cemented our relationship with the proposer, a member of 104 London Debaters! We are human beings and have emotions. We should connect as souls, with poetry. If Donald Trump had a word with Charles III it should be: ‘You’re fired!’. We have cynicism about leaders, perhaps Musk can put them all in a rocket. We the people need to have a revolution for peace on Earth – we don’t need a special relationship. Trump can go for an Oscar. No one should abstain tonight, vote for or against. We’ve had nostalgia for Churchill from the floor tonight. We have a fear of enemies in Russia and China. We cannot live in fear but in peace.
Result: the special relationship debate motion did not carry
In the final vote, the Sylvans concluded through the debate that we should have a special relationship with the Trump administration.
Please see summaries of earlier Sylvan debates here.
For more information about how our meetings run, see meeting info.