Theresa's travels: triumph or travesty?
Theresa the appeaser, from The New European
Wednesday 1 February
“The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead” - Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal Thank goodness there has been nothing desperate about Theresa May this week. The scramble to be first in a queue of none to meet President Trump, the hasty invitation for him to come and stay with the Queen, the “your stunning victory” compliments: none gave the slightest whiff of Eau du Blood. No, here we had two leaders completely in tune (if not on torture, Russia, Nato, protectionism…) walking hand-in-hand to lead the world to a better future. Theirs is a special relationship to be sure. 
The British Press fell over itself to celebrate the union: “Love-in at the White House”, “Trump blesses Britain”, “Hand in hand the happy couple”. The Prime Minister had played a blinder. She had spoken frankly, as only friends can, on tricky issues. She had wowed the Republicans in Philadelphia. Every word was carefully chosen, every card played with precision. Who could doubt that the UK was back in the ascendant? No more back of the queue for us.
What’s more she had a piece of paper to prove it. OK, so maybe there are rules about negotiating new trade agreements before Britain leaves the EU, but the happy couple signed a document anyway saying that nothing will change until America has decided what will change. 
How did the American papers view all this? The New York Times responded by devoting its Saturday profile slot – “a weekly profile of individuals who are shaping the world around them” – to a prominent figure in British politics: Gary Lineker. It also carried a postage stamp picture of May and Trump inset in a front-page story about Russian email hackery, cross referring to an agency report on page 15 on sanctions against Russia for its activities in Crimea.
The Washington Post put a photograph of May and Trump half way down the front page with a caption saying that the President had spent most of his first joint news conference with a world leader talking about himself.The report of the occasion filled the top half of page three, and got round to Mrs May at the foot of the penultimate column, noting:
“The president was more subdued than usual but still looked as though he were introducing the winner of a spelling bee. At times, as May turned to Trump, seeming to seek affirmation or at least encouragement, the president stared straight ahead, unaware of his guest’s entreaties.” 
Other big-hitting American papers, such as the Boston Globe and LA Times could find no room for our lady in red on their front pages. The Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal ran a paragraph for its US edition, but it did make May the main photograph for its European readers.
Strangely, most were more interested in the Mexican wall. And John Hurt. But Mrs May didn’t hang around to see the headlines. She had another engagement, selling weapons to Turkey, that bastion of human rights whose potential membership of the EU caused such consternation during the referendum campaign because its 79 million citizens were all packed and ready to head to Britain. There was something else she wasn’t in Washington to see. Her flight had barely left the runway before Trump was signing an executive order banning Muslims from seven specified countries from entering the US, even if they were in possession of valid visas or already in mid-air.
Bullying and bigotry appear to be bread and butter to the new President. Now here was our Prime Minister the meat in a sandwich between “torture works” and “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants. On waterboarding, she said: "We do not sanction torture and we do not get involved in it". On the travel ban, she declined to comment three times before saying that the US was responsible for its own refugee policy. That was eventually beefed up to an official statement from No 10 saying that she “did not agree” with the policy 
As Mrs May pointed out in Washington, friends should speak candidly. And her friends in Fleet Street came good.
There were concerns, for a start, about that state visit. Not because the invitation seemed speedy and needy – previous presidents have had their day in the golden coach two or three years into their term of office – but because Trump might encounter the Prince of Wales. Understandable: Charles has form, having boycotted the state dinners in honour of Presidents Hu and Xi of China in 2005 and 2015, he might not want to dine with climate-change denier Trump. Except that the worry was not that our prince would have to shake hands with Trump, but that Trump might have to endure a 15-minute lecture from the Prince. There was also a problem of timing: the visit was pencilled in for June; the President wants to play a round on the Queen’s Balmoral golf course and the Queen likes to go to Balmoral in September 
But what about the travel ban? The pops were interested in a nominated film director who might not be able to attend the Oscars; the heavies gave it more, although they still preferred the climate change spat with Charles and Trump’s stair phobia. All celebrated May’s triumph – “a dazzling success,” said the Mail on Sunday; “Cool hand Theresa deftly twists Donald’s arm” from the Sunday Times – and none questioned her failure to condemn the ban.
Apart from the Observer, which splashed on the ban and ran a huge puff above pointing to its leader, saying: “Theresa May's Washington triumph, if that is what it was, will be short-lived. On issues that matter to Britain, Trump cannot be trusted.”
When Mo Farah piped up to say that he might not be able to go home to his family in Oregon, and a thousand people a minute signed a petition opposing the state visit, the story moved up the agenda. Amber Rudd and Boris Johnson were “ordered” to call their American counterparts to “demand” an explanation. With May under pressure, her friends in the Press would surely give it to her straight? 
Like this:
“Trump in climbdown over British travellers”. “Britons escape US travel ban”. “Boris keeps US open to Britons”. “Drug to stop Alzheimer’s”. (OK, the Express did also report the row – it wasn’t going to miss the opportunity to run photographs of the Queen and Trump). The Sun splashed on a lottery winner, but squeezed in a tiny single headlined “BoJo in US win for Mo”. So those calls from Johnson and Rudd were not protests, but special pleading. And had it even occurred to anyone in government before Mo Farah made his point so eloquently that Brits might be affected? 
Far from taking May to task – did she know in advance that Trump was going to make his move (she did)? Why did she take so long to offer even the slightest criticism (even Erdogan beat her to it)? Why did she have to offer Trump a state visit when he’d been in the job only a week? – what mattered to the Press was that Brits would be seen right. Especially our expat sporting stars.
The fact is, of course, that some of those papers rather admire the policy and wish it could be imposed here. Only the Express had the guts to say as much in an oped by Leo McKinstrey and with one of its lovely phone polls to which 99% of an unspecified number of respondents said “yes” to the question: “Should Britain bring in ‘extreme vetting’ of migrants?”
And then it turned out that Canada had beaten us to the “special deal”: the Toronto Star reported on Sunday that Washington had told Ottawa that Canadians with dual citizenship would still be allowed in. Moreover, Downing Street had to admit that anyone in Europe could have made the same phone call and got the same result.
By then more than 1.5m people had signed a petition asking for the invitation to be revoked and tens of thousands were protesting about the Trump travel ban across the UK. Boris had to explain himself to the Commons, where Labour MP Mike Gapes picked up the Twitter trend to label the Prime Minister “Theresa the appeaser”. 
Time for home truths from those friends in the Press? Not a bit of it.
While the dangerous Left (aka the Mirror, Guardian and i) focused on the protests and The Times found a diplomat in Lord Ricketts to point out - at last - that the State visit invitation was unprecedentedly early, the pro-Brexit papers took flight. The Express comforted itself with the weather, the Mail and Telegraph led on caring for elderly parents, the Sun found a rather good sex and bribery scandal in the City. Inside they couldn’t avoid the subject, reporting the protests alongside “calm down, he’s not Hitler” leaders all over the place and mockery for the state visit petition. Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun advised us to “bask in our unexpected good fortune” in having Trump in the White House. 
With MPs gathering in the Commons for the Brexit debate that right-wing papers regarded as an affront to democracy, it might be thought that the news wave would roll on. But that would be to forget that Paul Dacre does not tolerate dissent, let alone defiance. Wednesday’s Mail was a collector’s edition, starting with its splash on “health tourism” right through to the positioning of the debate coverage (pages 22-23 – at least a few pages further forward than the sentencing of Jo Cox’s killer).
The splash – and an inside spread – was about the £500,000 bill for a Nigerian woman who gave birth to quads, two of whom died, after going into labour on landing at Heathrow. It, like the Sun’s coverage, was long on outrage and short on compassion. Then there were two spreads on the Trump furore. The first, in true Mail style, impugning the motives of the diplomat who produced Tuesday’s Times splash and who was then invited to repeat his interpretation on radio and television. How dare he “drag the Queen” into politics (– er, didn’t Mrs May do that?) The second saw comments by Prince Charles on the dangers of forgetting the Holocaust as an assault on Trump. To round off the coverage there was a full page leader, the surest sign of Dacre fury, peppered with references to the liberal elite and hysterical lefties and luvvies.
Trump policies might be misguided or distasteful, but he was the democratically elected leader of our most powerful ally, yet “the massed ranks of our liberal elites and their sheep-like followers have…made plain that they would rather see Britain risk its security and be reduced to penury than do business with, let alone show friendship to…a man they paint as a monster”.
After yet another run-through of the nasty people who who previously been invited to the Palace and another pop at Lord Ricketts, the leader concludes: “The last thing Britain wants to do is make an enemy of the world's greatest power.” Which, to some, might seem the definition of appeasement. 
When the reader finally reaches the Brexit debate coverage, it is the usual impartial Mail fare, under the headline “They still don’t get it”, with the deliciously inaccurate sub-head “Up to 100 MPs ready to reject Article 50 bill…and defy the 16m who voted to leave the EU”. Haven’t we been told countless times that it was 17m who voted to leave and that their will must not be thwarted? And that the 16m who voted to remain must be defied?
It’s the papers that still don’t get it. What is that nonsense in the Mail? Risking security? Reducing us to penury? Not do business with the US? Who has said any of that? How will not offering Trump a silver spoon reduce us to penury and put our security in danger (especially as we have only May’s word for it that Trump is “100% behind Nato”)? Who has said that we shouldn’t trade with America? All anyone has said is that we shouldn’t fete him with the greatest honour we can show a foreign leader. Yet. 
And what about the petty “my petition is growing faster than yours” coverage of the counter-petition that says Trump should be welcomed? As I write, it stands at 200,000 against 1.7m. Rather like Trump’s “my inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama’s” – and just as relevant. Neither has any meaning other than as a snapshot of random public opinion.
Of course Trump will eventually make a state visit. But for now there would have been no insult in inviting him simply to come to Britain, even to have lunch with the Queen, to cement the relationship between the new leaders. He didn’t need to be offered bed and banquet at the Palace in his first five minutes in office. He was an unorthodox candidate and would inevitably be an unpredictable president. Common sense should have dictated that May should wait to see how he settled in before dashing over to kiss hands, and certainly to hold back on that invitation. The fact that she issued it in the knowledge that he was about to put into force a policy that would demonise whole populations and smear an entire religion shows ill-judgment, a lack of understanding of her own country – and desperation. It was May’s behaviour, not Trump’s, that led to that petition and protests across the country. Yes, there would have been demonstrations about the travel ban, but it was the state visit invitation that brought so many more out on to the streets. And by banging her drum and demanding that we all rejoice in Trump’s perceived benevolence, the Brexit Press are doing her – and the country - no favours. Are you smelling blood yet, Donald? |
|
Please take a few minutes to tell us what you think
|
How you can be a SubScriber
|
Sign up for email updates (no spam, about one a month)...
|
|
...make a financial contribution
I'd like to subscribe
There will never be a charge for reading SubScribe,
but if you would like to make a donation to keep it going, you can do so in a variety of ways by pressing this button. Thank you. |
