A Conversation on Trump

By Guy Wilkinson and Liam Fell

Trump’s latest fiasco has yet again sparked debate over the potential to prevent his
scheduled state visit. A state visit is a formal visit by a foreign head of state and is normally
at the invitation of our head of state, the Queen.

Trump retweeted three of Jayden Fransen’s tweets, purportedly showing a group of

Muslims pushing a boy off a roof, a Muslim desecrating a statue of the Virgin Mary, and
another Muslim immigrant hitting a Dutch boy on crutches. Jayden Fransen, a deputy leader
of the far-right group, Britain First, faces charges of using threatening language whilst
making a speech in Belfast.

The credibility of the videos has been called into question, with the Dutch embassy in the
USA stating that the perpetrator of the violent act against the boy on crutches, was in fact
born and raised in the Netherlands. A petition to prevent Trump’s visit in January 2017
attracted 1m signatures, prompting a Parliamentary debate. The petition now sits at 1.78m
signatures. Supporters of Trump’s state visit have created a rival petition that has attracted
200,000 signatures in just a few days. It is hoped the following conversation will highlight
some different perspectives on the debate:

Wilkinson: Prime Minister Theresa May has of course condemned Trump’s actions, saying ‘I
am very clear that retweeting from Britain First was the wrong thing to do.’ And yet, she still
refuses to cancel the planned state visit. The middle ground is exactly the course the Prime
Minster should be taking, to further the interest of the United Kingdom, whilst also
protecting the values that it holds so dear. However, this condemnation does not go far
enough, and instead the UK’s policy should reflect our disgust at Trump’s tweets, by
rejecting a full state visit. This is not prohibiting a visit outright, but instead denies the high
profile subordination that Trump so desperately wants to exhibit.

Fell: First of all it is important to consider the purpose of a state visit. A state visit is not an
endorsement of the politics of the visiting head of state, and is certainly not an
endorsement of their character. I believe it is better to view a state visit in the same context
as any other form of diplomatic relationship. We host state visits and maintain diplomatic
relations with a variety of foreign powers. Often these governments and societies do not
reflect the values of our own. Yet diplomats and government ministers understand the
necessity of maintaining these relationships. A Trump state visit should be no different. The
purpose of it is to maintain the special relationship we share with our closest ally.

Wilkinson: You make the point that we often invite governments and heads of state, who do
not reflect the values of our own country. That is true, since we have hosted King Abdullah
of Saudi Arabia and President Xi Jinping of China, to name two. However, never before has
an American President, or any other prominent world leader for that matter, openly and
intrusively promoted aspects of the British political landscape to which we so want to
distance ourselves. One could also argue that Obama interfered in British politics, by
declaring that Britain would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the US, should
it decide to leave the EU. But this was a matter of serious, global economic importance and
practical policy. Trump is not advocating any practical policy by retweeting far right twitter
pages, he is merely endorsing an ideological stance that embraces racism in a general sense,
and more specifically, Islamophobia. He was even given the chance to apologise, by Theresa
May’s condemnation, and yet he still chose to stand by Britain first, by saying ‘Don’t focus
on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the
United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!’ This is not acceptable.

Fell: Trump has never hidden his uncompromising nature or his inability to admit fault. It is
therefore not unsurprising that when rightfully challenged by Theresa May, he did not
distance himself from his original comments. This is simply in his character. His behaviour on
Twitter only confirms his inability to shoulder the responsibilities of a head of state, which in
itself is not enough to preclude him from a state visit. A full state visit is understandably not
something that should be given lightly. Not only are they expensive with, policing costs alone
expected to be to the tune of ten million pounds. Their significance is diminished if held too often.
So it is reasonable to question the appropriateness to offer a full state visit to Trump, given the UK
has only offered full state visits to the US twice in its history. If the aim of a state visit is to build
relations with a foreign nation, in this case a full state visit might actually be the strongest tool in
Theresa May’s arsenal. Given Trump’s well-documented egotistical nature, perhaps the best way to
ensure the continued support of the leader of the free world is to let him ride in a sufficiently golden
carriage and eat dinner in a palace.

Wilkinson: Giving him a full state visit in a golden carriage and a nice dinner is merely adding
fuel to the fire. Appeasing him won’t improve his behaviour, nor will it improve relations
with the USA. The chances are Trump has already made up his mind as to what policies to
pursue in regards to the UK, thus flattering him with lavish spending is pointless. To invite
Donald Trump, a man who has instigated migrant bans, refused to call out clear terrorist
actions, such as in Charlottesville, will cause the Queen great embarrassment. The pro-
Trump state visit camp seem to create this illusion that the Queen’s opinion on the matter is
a mysterious notion, that cannot be understood. This is quite frankly wrong, and although
we cannot know the Queen’s opinion for certain, it is quite clear that almost everyone
within the Houses of Parliament agree that Trump does not subscribe to the British values
under which we, as a country pride ourselves. On a practical aspect, inviting Trump for a full
state visit would make Theresa May’s position appear even more tenable. The UK
government already looks hopelessly weak on the international stage, with Boris Johnson’s
blunder in regards to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Priti Patel visiting places she shouldn’t, and
of course most importantly the maelstrom, that is the Brexit negotiations. The last thing the
government wants or needs is mass protests on the streets, against a racist, misogynistic
megalomaniac.

Fell: Confirming our ongoing relationship with our closest ally will not make us look weak. In
fact I believe it will have the opposite effect. Not only does it send a clear message to the
rest of the world that Britain stands with its allies regardless of the political pressure at
home or abroad, it also shows would-be foreign adversaries that in spite of political change
in America, Britain still intends to maintain the status-quo. To your point on the Queen, as
part of her role over the last 65 years she has no doubt had to host many people she did not
personally like. And certainly some that have not adhered to the values of our country.
Putting aside the fact that Trump would be visiting as a representative of his nation (which
broadly does share the same values as our own) the Queen has always put personal matters
aside and carried out the role she is required to do. A Trump state visit would be no
exception.

Regardless of the outcome of this diplomatic conundrum, we can both agree it is vitally
important to debate the implications of state visits by controversial leaders, particularly
ones that interfere with our political landscape and values.