Is there anything more glorious than watching Donald Trump tear a British Prime Minister a new one? Andy Burnham arrived in New York fresh from assuring Mauritius he would keep working towards a Chagos deal, only for the lunatic President to call the deal “terrible” and “ridiculous” and leave it for dead. Having failed to give away one chunk of British sovereignty, he spent the evening lamenting the return of another, managing to wedge the dreaded B word into the opening minutes of his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
“It is now 10 years since Brexit,” he told the world’s leaders, before explaining that his country had “lived through the disruption it brought”. It takes a special kind of talent to stand on the world’s biggest diplomatic stage and open with a sulk about a vote held a decade ago. Minutes later he was complaining that Britain had given too much ground to those who push “a negative, corrosive narrative about life in Britain”, and the irony appears to have sailed clean over his head.
Whatever the Prime Minister privately thinks of the referendum, it is what it is, and the job of a grown-up leader is to help the country move on.
The Labour Party is now so adrift from reality that it has convinced ‘continuity Keir’ (more like ‘incontinence Keir’) that the best way to win the next general election is to relitigate Brexit, as if the heavens fell and time stood still on the day that decision was made.
Hamish Falconer, the newly promoted Europe minister, went on Sky News to promise no backsliding on the result, then said rejoining would be a question for Labour’s next manifesto. Anyone fluent in ‘ministerial speak’ knows that is the furthest thing from a no. Burnham himself has said he wants to see Britain back in the EU within his lifetime.
Of course our hapless politicians would love nothing more than to devolve crucial decision-making to a supranational entity stuffed with busybodies and their cronies. People with long memories will remember the circus over VAT on tampons, when parliamentarians happily shrugged their shoulders and blamed “EU rules” – as if Britain were a neutered corpse blowing in whichever direction the bloc sent it, and ‘sovereignty’ was the dirtiest word ever invented. That tax vanished the moment we were free to scrap it.
As I have asked before, can anyone in that wretched party actually lay out why we should rejoin? What exactly is so imperative about crawling back into an economic bloc that has itself barely managed to grow since we left? The eurozone shrank in the first three months of this year and was limping along at 1% annual growth by the summer, with Germany, supposedly the engine of the whole enterprise, trailing below even that. I have spoken to plenty of leading economists and financiers in America who simply cannot fathom Britain’s fixation. Try naming ten leading global companies to have emerged from the bloc in the past decade and you will scratch every hair follicle off your head trying. Yet this country’s left talks about the EU as though it were our North Star, created by God on the eighth day. It is an obsession that borders on lunacy.
Andy Burnham addresses the UN General Assembly on Tuesday evening… mentioning Brexit in minutes (Image: John Angelillo/UPI/Shutterstock)
The delusion runs so deep that Burnham seems to think Brussels is his ticket to victory. Immigration and the eye-watering cost of heating your home can apparently wait while he busies himself undoing the largest democratic vote in this country’s history. This summer YouGov repeated a survey it first ran in 2016, and the share of Britons who say immigration over the past decade has been mostly bad for the country has climbed from a third to 43%. Among Remain voters, that figure has almost doubled. Under the treacherous ‘Boriswave’, the public watched immigration numbers soar despite being promised control of our borders. And now the Prime Minister’s answer is to flirt with the very club that would bring free movement back with it.
If it was ever in doubt that Labour has been captured by middle-class M25 liberals who wouldn’t know a working-class person if they clubbed them over the head, Brexit settles it. Burnham’s own seat of Makerfield voted Leave by nearly two to one. Has it once occurred to him to address the concerns of those voters, the very people who sent him to Westminster in June? How many times must we rehash the same argument before Westminster finally gets the message? There is a country to govern, with an anaemic economy and borders that still leak like a sieve. Does anyone in this government have the slightest interest in actually running it?
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Donald Trump just tore Andy Burnham a new one – and it was glorious to watch
Donald Trump and Andy Burnham’s first face-to-face meeting was always likely to attract attention. The British prime minister arrived in New York facing questions about whether he could establish a workable relationship with a US president with whom he has disagreed on several major issues.
What followed was more complicated than the headline might suggest.
Trump did criticise one of the most controversial elements of British foreign policy, describing the UK’s agreement over the Chagos Islands as a “terrible deal” and questioning the decision to transfer sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius. But the American president simultaneously offered unusually positive comments about Burnham himself, calling him a “natural business person” and saying he believed he could do business with him.
The result was a meeting that contained both public disagreement and diplomatic warmth.
For Burnham, the Chagos dispute was the most uncomfortable moment. Yet the broader encounter was not the political confrontation that some observers might have expected. Reuters reported that the two leaders also found common ground on issues including the cost of living, economic growth and the need to reindustrialise their countries.
Trump takes aim at the Chagos agreement
The most striking exchange concerned Diego Garcia, the strategically important military base located in the Chagos Archipelago.
Trump has opposed the UK-Mauritius agreement for months. During the meeting in New York, he repeated that opposition in unusually direct terms.
He argued that the islands represented an extremely important strategic location and questioned why Britain would transfer sovereignty while paying to retain access to the military facility.
The criticism was particularly significant because Burnham was sitting alongside him.
Trump then indicated that he expected the British prime minister to look again at the agreement.
Burnham agreed that the situation needed to be examined.
The exchange was diplomatically awkward, but it also reflected a reality Burnham had already acknowledged: he inherited the Chagos agreement rather than negotiating it himself.
After the meeting, Burnham said he was confident Britain could work with the United States and Mauritius to find a solution.
That position is consistent with the statement issued by Downing Street after the meeting. The Prime Minister said he was committed to working with all parties to find a solution concerning Diego Garcia.
The disagreement was not personal
Despite the sharp criticism of the Chagos agreement, Trump did not portray Burnham himself as an adversary.
Quite the opposite.
The US president described the British leader as a “natural business person” and said the two men had spoken several times by telephone before their first face-to-face meeting.
Trump also said he believed Britain was doing better under Burnham than it had under his predecessor, Keir Starmer.
That was significant because the relationship between Trump and Starmer had become increasingly difficult during the latter’s premiership.
By contrast, Burnham has deliberately adopted a more pragmatic tone towards Washington.
Reuters reported that Burnham said the pair had established a “good connection” during their earlier conversations and that this had continued during the New York meeting. He described the encounter as encouraging.
The meeting therefore cannot accurately be described simply as Trump attacking Burnham.
The president criticised a major British policy, but he also expressed confidence that he could work with the prime minister.
Burnham had a difficult inheritance
The Chagos issue illustrates one of the most difficult aspects of Burnham’s new premiership.
The agreement with Mauritius was negotiated under the previous government and was intended to settle a decades-long dispute over sovereignty.
At the same time, Diego Garcia has major military importance to both Britain and the United States.
The UK government has therefore attempted to reconcile two objectives: resolving the sovereignty dispute while preserving the military base.
Before meeting Trump, Burnham had already spoken to Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam.
Downing Street said Burnham had underlined his commitment to working with Mauritius and the United States on a solution that would protect the operation of Diego Garcia and UK national security.
That means Burnham’s position is not simply to abandon the agreement because Trump objects to it.
His stated approach is to find an arrangement acceptable to the different parties.
Why Diego Garcia matters so much
The disagreement cannot be understood without considering Diego Garcia’s strategic importance.
The island is home to a major joint UK-US military facility and occupies a strategically important position in the Indian Ocean.
It has supported military operations in the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere.
For Washington, the base provides logistical and operational advantages that are difficult to replace.
For Britain, maintaining the base is also considered important for national security and the wider defence relationship with the United States.
That explains why Trump has focused so heavily on the agreement.
Associated Press reported that US officials have previously described Diego Garcia as an extremely important platform for security operations across several regions. The base has also played a role in US military operations over several decades.
The dispute is therefore about much more than ownership of remote islands.
It concerns the future of a major military installation.
Trump had criticised the deal before
Trump’s opposition is not new.
The Chagos agreement had already faced serious difficulties before Burnham entered Downing Street.
Trump criticised the proposed transfer earlier in 2026, and the agreement subsequently remained on hold.
The original arrangement envisaged Britain transferring sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius while retaining rights to operate the military base on Diego Garcia.
The agreement was designed to provide long-term certainty for the base while addressing Mauritius’s longstanding sovereignty claim.
However, Trump’s objections created a major obstacle.
Associated Press reported that the treaty had effectively stalled, with legislation needed to ratify it failing to complete the parliamentary process before the previous session ended.
Burnham therefore entered his meeting with Trump knowing that the issue was unresolved.
A broader conversation about Britain’s relationship with America
The Chagos dispute was only one part of the meeting.
Burnham and Trump also discussed trade, energy, immigration, Ukraine, Iran and the Falkland Islands.
Downing Street said the leaders emphasised the importance of the UK-US relationship and discussed existing trade agreements.
Burnham also argued that Britain needed to regain confidence in its economic prospects through reindustrialisation and a clearer national direction.
Migration was another topic.
Burnham told Trump about his government’s efforts to reduce small-boat crossings and net migration, while also stressing the contribution of people who had migrated legally.
The two leaders also discussed the impact of the Middle East conflict on the cost of living.
For Burnham, this was important because energy prices have become a major economic concern for Britain.
A prolonged international conflict can increase oil and gas prices, placing additional pressure on households and businesses.
Iran creates another area of tension
The relationship between Washington and London has also been complicated by disagreements over Iran.
Burnham travelled to the United States with an interest in encouraging diplomacy and reducing the risk of further escalation.
Trump, meanwhile, has taken a much harder position on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Reuters reported that Trump said he believed a settlement with Iran could eventually be reached but insisted that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
The issue illustrates the broader challenge facing Burnham.
Britain wants to maintain its close security relationship with the United States, but the government may not always agree with Washington over the use of military force or the best route towards resolving international conflicts.
The politics of Burnham’s relationship with Trump
There is also an interesting political dimension to the meeting.
Burnham had been publicly critical of Trump in previous years.
In 2017, he said he would not meet Trump as a matter of principle. Following the US Capitol riot in January 2021, he also criticised British politicians who continued to engage with the American president.
Yet political office changes the calculations.
As prime minister, Burnham is responsible for Britain’s relationship with the United States, regardless of his personal views about Trump’s political style.
He has therefore emphasised the importance of moving beyond earlier disagreements and developing a practical relationship.
That approach was visible in New York.
Rather than reopening old disputes, Burnham concentrated on areas where cooperation might be possible.
Reform UK seizes on the Chagos dispute
The Chagos disagreement also provided an opportunity for Reform UK.
Nigel Farage has long criticised the agreement and welcomed Trump’s opposition.
Following the meeting, Farage declared that the Chagos deal was effectively dead.
That is a political interpretation rather than a formal statement about the treaty’s legal status.
The British government has not announced that it has abandoned the agreement. Instead, ministers have indicated that they are reviewing the situation and seeking a solution acceptable to Britain, the United States and Mauritius.
The distinction matters.
Trump’s opposition makes implementation more difficult, but it does not by itself determine the final legal or diplomatic outcome.
What does the meeting mean for Burnham?
The most important lesson may be that Burnham’s relationship with Trump is likely to involve both cooperation and disagreement.
The two leaders appear to have established a workable personal relationship.
But personal rapport does not remove differences over policy.
Trump’s public criticism of the Chagos agreement demonstrated that Washington has clear strategic interests that Britain must take seriously.
At the same time, Burnham’s response demonstrated that he does not intend to treat the dispute as an all-or-nothing confrontation.
He has said he inherited the problem and wants to find a resolution.
A complicated first meeting
The headline “Trump just tore Andy Burnham a new one” captures the dramatic element of the Chagos exchange, but it leaves out much of what happened.
Trump did publicly attack a major British policy and called the agreement a “terrible deal”.
But he also praised Burnham personally, described him as someone he could do business with and said the relationship between Britain and the United States was going well.
Burnham, meanwhile, emerged from the meeting committed to continued negotiations rather than a public confrontation.
The next stage will be considerably more important than the exchange itself.
Britain must determine whether the Chagos agreement can be revised in a way that addresses American concerns while preserving its relationship with Mauritius and protecting the future of Diego Garcia.
At the same time, Burnham will need to manage disagreements with Washington over Iran, AI regulation, trade and other international questions.
His first meeting with Trump therefore produced neither a diplomatic rupture nor complete agreement.
Instead, it offered a preview of the relationship that may define a significant part of Burnham’s premiership: a close partnership with Washington, combined with recurring disputes over Britain’s strategic and foreign-policy choices.