Who wants to be the 51st State first?

Apparently, according to a columnist in the Guardian Starmer is moving the UK towards a wartime economy, albeit doing so ‘regretfully’ at the expense of foreign aid, which is now headed towards being less than half of the arbitrary 0.7% of GDP established in law (amazingly) by the Tories in 2015. It seems like the poor can pay for everything—similar crocodile tears of ‘regret’ were shed by Rachel Reeves when she took away the Winter Fuel Allowance from pensioners. I think the Starmeroids are lying bastards, but since the impoverished and dying in the developing world don’t have a vote it doesn’t matter. Looks like more will have to be spent on ‘stopping the boats’ as more people flee their knackered homes elsewhere. Let’s not forget Trump is doing much the same thing with USAID. I can imagine Starmer repeating in his sleep ‘I’m not Neville Chamberlain. I’m not an appeaser. I’m a tough guy.’ Perhaps he mumbles it to himself when he’s awake too. But since we are so often reminded about the period of appeasement with Hitler and how it must not be repeated with Putin, we might do well to remember that the circumstances are not the same. It is true that until the attack on Pearl Harbour late in 1941 the U.S. was fairly isolationist, but not passively so, it supported the UK’s war effort through various means. Trump is no Roosevelt and if it were Trump in the White House in 1940 I guess he might have said how much he admired Hitler as he has said about Putin today. I imagine if Trump learns how much we rely on the U.S. for our nuclear arms he’ll want to take a nice chunk out of Starmer’s extra billions for defence. No other country has such an arrangement with the U.S. It’s hardly a strength on our part.
 
I began writing this yesterday so was surprised—and pleased—to discover that I am not alone in thinking such thoughts. For today, a Guardian clickbait headline reads ‘The question no one dares ask: what if Britain has to defend itself from the US?’ George Monbiot examines the question, also pointing out how our reliance on U.S. military support could become a weakness. He might also have mentioned how the same is true for Canada and Greenland. It begs the question why Trump might support Putin in his land grab. Might it not legitimise (in his own head) equivalent behaviour? I wonder if our own hard-nosed leader has considered these angles as he genuflects to Trump today?