'We cannot have chaos': Emily Thornberry on the law of war and Labour's struggles

Pibisi podcast ei ole koko ajan suurin jää. Limpulyden rannin ja DNA saapelin haltuina. Sieltä syötetään suoraan lafaan aivan järjisyyttäväavaosimittain. Kaikki ämme lähtkästä. Viopleitotalilla DNA-asia käsetuhintaan. Kohtaisiketään kyllä verkkottöötterölle. Hei, ei mikään karnevaali. Ehon niin mua. Niin suon. Elemä on. Niin suoraan käsetään, ei ole käsetä, ei ole käsetä. Niin suoraan käsetään. Niin suoraan käsetään, ei ole käsetä. Niin se ei ole käsetä. Se on pelisikokalta. Tämä on inflointiala käset. Se on seuraavaan käset. Päämme, ei ole käsetä. Tämä on käsetä. Tämä on käsetä. Se on käsetä. lä не Phewsee halvaa ti Noteita minuuttava surprisinga Sitten茲factingit embarrassinga, jos Wakeup, Hothing happy Luuhinkan, pikkuaamia oderозм Shouldn't Siis on takasen tutkimuksin unleash видet Johann Hond ситуsi Mien loitvorit olisivat Täällä so It's okay Tleri This is the great moment we're in though isn't it where people have to choose what they say about Trump? What they want to say? What they really think and what they do say? Do you think we'll look back at this week and think this was Keir Starmer's love actually moment? The moment he actually found the courage to stand up to the US President? I don't think that he hasn't stood up to the American President as you put it. Because of a lack of courage. I think that a calculation was made that it was in Britain's interests to be close to the United States and the new president in particular because of the need for a trade deal, particularly since we're out of the European Union and because we needed the Americans to give us support in our fighting Ukraine and I think both of those things were the reason that we needed someone to be a Trump whisperer and much everybody surprised because they're such different characters. Actually there was a chemistry and they do seem to get on. But you know Donald Trump has a way of expressing himself when he's cross, which is not exactly diplomatic and many people get it in the neck and What did you think when you heard him saying he's no Churchill? I thought I wonder what Winston Churchill would make of Donald Trump to be honest. Or what I would give for sitting down and having a glass of Armenian brandy with Churchill and asking him because you know obviously Donald Trump's no no Franklin Roosevelt and a very different type of character and not the sort of person who necessarily was prominent in in politics during Second World War. So it will be very interesting to see there has been so much change. But I just think you know when he gets like that you have to stand up to him. I mean just calm. You can't be treated like that. You have to stand up to someone and and here has been right to not just he stood up to him when it came to Greenland when it came to the insults of our forces and now. So actually it has been building up It wasn't just a suddenly flipping to I'm going to say that the president is wrong because he said the president is wrong a few times You know we've been building up to this. No one expects Kirsta must start talking like Donald Trump or indeed Emily Thorntonbury calling Donald Trump an asteroid of awfulness But he's very lawyerly still isn't it? As people listen to the Prime Minister say look on the one hand We can take part in defensive actions against Iran, but we can't take part in offensive actions It's not very clear to people is it what the government's policy is. It is difficult because as far as I can see what happens is that the Americans asked to use the basis It's thought about it said no you can't because the way that we do things in Britain is it has to be in Britain's interests We have to have a plan and it has to be legal and We don't think it fits any of those but particularly we don't think it's legal because we don't think that you can just attack another country It has to be in self-defense, but you've just said it very clearly women and that The Prime Minister's never said that. Oh, I think he got pretty close to it in the chamber actually I think you got pretty close to it in the chamber and then and then what happens I think is that the Americans come back a couple of days later and go But you know what you were saying about defense? I mean that's what I think has happened and and you think well actually Yeah, I mean if you're going to use the bases in order to defend the Gulf and look what you know look what Iran is doing They're sending you know missiles out willy nearly to everybody including poor old or man who've been doing everything They can to try to get some peace and they all everybody's getting hit these are allies We need to defend them. Can we use it? Can we use it the bases for that? And you have to say well, yeah, right? Yeah, yeah You think in a way the Americans have got their own cleft lawyers you said well you were very precise and what you said you couldn't couldn't do I wouldn't put it like that what I would say is that they came to an understanding and it's a long you know I mean we work with the Americans no matter who the president is there is a closeness when it comes to defense and intelligence and I've seen it in action I've seen you know seen people at dinners From the American side from the British side you know meeting one another like old friends It doesn't matter who the leader is. There's still this closeness and this trust. I think there are people listening watching Who will still think? Emily Thornton has been clearer in the last three minutes than the Prime Minister has been all week the times sketch writer mocked the Prime Minister for having a policy of yeah but no but yeah but no but It's not clear to people It is the worst job in the world to be a Labour Prime Minister Second to I think being leader of the opposition and Labour I think that we have a media who absolutely delight in taking politicians to pieces but particularly the leader of the Labour Party I know people don't agree with me I know that people think that the press is even handed but they're not And and he gets a very hard time because of that and you get a harder time if you're the leader So it goes with the territory I'm afraid it doesn't matter who we who we had as leader they they would have been taken to pieces by the media Let's talk about what it means then rather than about as it were the communications of this And we are talking on Wednesday afternoon so we simply don't know what's happened in the hours and days before people may be listening to this But if God help us, there were an attack on say the RF base in Cyprus Is your understanding that then We can attack Iran, we can bomb Iran because that would be allowed under self defence Are you clear about that? Yeah I mean it's not there's nothing magic about this I mean international law on this is a little bit like just the criminal law that we all know You can't go around hitting people You can defend yourself if someone has hit you and you need to defend yourself Or is a bout to and you can see them squaring up to you You can hit them first in those circumstances it's really as simple as that And that's the same translated into international law You can't just say don't like you as a country You know don't like the way that you behave I'm going to you know I'm going to I'm going to bomb you You can't do that it's not the way it is that's the law of the jungle But you can if you're defending yourself and it is a legitimate defending yourself Is there a moral problem though with that? I remember raising with you last time you were on political thinking way back in 2018 This issue of Iran because Jeremy Corbyn then your leader Had been on a march to celebrate the revolution in Iran or so it seemed And I put it to you that that was seen by many people as I'll accept it And you say we can't go around changing the policy From outside Isn't the difficulty with that argument? That in the year since Iran's murdered thousands of its own people Possibly tens of thousands it has armed his balar that fire rockets from the north Into Israel it has armed organized and funded Hamas Who did the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust inside Israel on October 7th Isn't the danger of the approach you've got? No, no, it's done more than that It's also funded and armed the Houthis You know, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas and has been enriching uranium Much more than it needs to, much more than is necessary for a nuclear plant So but not enough for a bomb but nevertheless you know on the way So I mean I do understand that it is a threat And that is why we have the JCPOA that's why Obama and Britain and the rest of the West For years and years we're involved in negotiations with Iran In order to get them to cut their nuclear program for there to be people going in Checking on it and with a threat of sanctions if they didn't do as has been agreed But some people listening to you will say well given the long list of Emily Thorntbrish Given it didn't take me to give it Forget international law It's meaningless they say Look Trump doesn't abide by international law. The Iranians don't abide by international law. Putin doesn't abide by international law. President Xi and China doesn't abide by international law. What is the meaning of this? Shouldn't we just do two things? What's moral and what's in Britain's interests? I think that it is in Britain's interests to be moral and to abide by international law. I'm sorry, I know I'm now, it's unlike a lawyer. But I think we are. What you are, we are. Yeah. But we are in middle ranking power. The reason why international law is the way that it is is largely written by British lawyers and it is in our interests for countries to abide by it. And we can't expect other countries to abide by it if we don't abide by ourselves. And the way that you do it is you do it by agreement with other countries. And so if the United Nations says that something has to happen and we do it collectively, that's a different matter. But otherwise, there is a duty on us not to go around attacking each other. Otherwise, let me put you put the other side of it. Where's the end to it? I mean, so we get these big countries just whacking each other because they think they can get away with it and they don't care. And then what about the middle ranking countries? Why can't they do that? Where is the end to this? We cannot have chaos. The weaker the ones who suffer the most when there's chaos. I'm not saying that international law doesn't have flaws. And I'm not saying that they can't be criticized. But what I am saying is, tell me something better. Tell me something better. But you see the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. I mean, he's not off the left. He's off the right, but in German politics, that still means he's pretty centrist by our position. He said now's not the time for the Europeans to lecture the United States and Israel about international law. And he effectively said all those things you said, the talks about nuclear policy, the JCPOA, and so on. None of it worked. Well, why didn't it work? Because Donald Trump got elected and didn't like a deal that Obama had signed. I mean, like, come on. That's what happened. What did he say? Didn't work because the Iranians ignored it? No. He tore it up and said that he didn't like it, that it should have other things, it should have missiles in, it should have all sorts of things that hadn't been part of the original agreement. That's why he tore it up. So it got torn up. And then we had a period of chaos. And yes, the Iranians then get sanctions against them and the Iranians then clearly start developing their nuclear weapons again. I mean, this is what happened. And we are on a slippery road whereby I suppose where we are now was kind of inevitable. Let's talk about where this comes from because on political thinking we try to explore the background, the values of the people we talk to. In a sense, this belief in international institutions, this belief in the law goes through Emily Thornberry like a stick of rock, doesn't it? Your dad worked for the UN. You are a lawyer, you're married to a judge. Tell me a bit about your dad. I'm told you've got his peacekeeping helmet. He ignited Nations peacekeeping helmet in your office. I mean, I think I tried to be fair on my father. He was a great man. He was a terrible father. I mean, he left me when I was seven. And then I went to live with him when I was 15. And when I was 17, he went to New York for the weekend. Got a job with the UN, didn't come back. Seriously. Where are the view people who have been left by their father twice? So yeah, he was-- Did he call and say I'm not coming back? Yeah, yeah, yeah. He said I've been given this fantastic job, Emily. Don't worry, I'm paying for the house and you can use the car. Right, you're 17. Look after yourself. I'm 17, look after yourself. I'm living in London. I ain't even-- Yeah. Because he worked for what the UN's oldest peacekeeping can be mission for all. So he went in. And he was-- first of all, he was brought in because he had strong connections with an organization called Swapo, which was the Southwest African People's Organization. He had strong connections with Namibia and with South Africa. And he'd been-- and he had many friends there and real insight. And he first got involved with the UN because it was hoped that there was going to be a peacekeeping mission go into South West Africa as then and transform it. Things slipped and he ended up doing other peacekeeping work. But eventually one of the greatest things he did was he was number two to the mission of Marti Artissari, who was the former president of Finland. And they brought peace to Swapo to South West Africa. And they had-- I mean, they had Cubans on the northern border. They had South Africans on the southern border. They had all-- you know, they had to negotiate with all these different powers. They had to get a constitution going. They had to get a state going. It was-- nobody knows about it because it worked. There wasn't a problem. So that's why it was never really in the news. But it was a huge achievement. And I'm very proud of my father. And he worked in the Middle East as well. And he worked in the Middle East. And he was in Cyprus. And he was in the UN for a bit. And he was also in former Yugoslavia. And did he talk to you about this? In other words, even though he was much of your life in absent from them, did he talk to you about the value of the things he believed in-- Yeah, sure. --of the UN, of, if you like, international law. And I've got a stepmother as well, who was-- who was in UNHCR, the High Commission for Refugees. And she also did-- she worked for the United Nations Development Program. So she was also very steeped in UN values and internationalism and the importance of countries working together. And yeah, an idealistic. I mean, they were both-- I mean, my stepmother still alive, thank goodness. But they were both very idealistic, really believed in what they were doing, very proud of what they were doing. Got knocked back a lot, but kept going because of a fundamental belief that it didn't have to be like this. We can make a better world. And when you hear Donald Trump say the United Nations is empty words, and empty words don't solve wars. Yeah. What do you think is chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee? I mean, I'm very sad to hear this. And I'm very sad to hear him say that he doesn't believe in international law and that the only thing that holds him back is his own conscience. I don't think that's the way that you want to have one of the most powerful people in the world behave. I believe very strongly that if we are a-- we're actually quite a small crowded space, and we have to be able to get on with each other, which means the world. The world. It's a fragile place. And the only way we're going to make progress is by doing it together. Now, the other thing I mentioned that shapes you is not just the heritage of international institutions, but a belief in the law. You were written off at school, weren't you? That was written off at school. You were told you'd be visiting prison, but that's a top lawyer. Yeah, yeah. My career teacher, I asked my career teacher one time what he thought I was going to do with my life. And he said, you can always visit people in prison, which is why I did, but not in the way that he thought. So you did as a barrister? Yeah, so I became a lawyer. I went to the University of Kent and did a law degree, and then bar school where I met my husband. And then I became a barrister. And I was in the chambers of my Mansfield. And I was a barrister for 20 years. I've done 20 years as a lawyer, and 20 years as an MP. So like Kirsta Amher, you're a human rights lawyer. Yeah, I've known Kirsta since 1987. Like him, you're from North London. You represent Islington South in North London. Do you ever think when you look at the politics now that what was your great achievement, defying what you were told you could achieve, or how little you could achieve, has actually in his own way become a problem for the Labour Party? Of course, it's an insult. It's a caricature. But this suggestion that it's a party of North London, Islington type, he's from Amsterdam, Northern, North London, or Kentish town, they're all the same to most people listening, has become a problem. Well, we're both from Surrey. I come from a councillor, Stason Surrey, and he comes from a semi-detached in Surrey. People make so many assumptions. They make assumptions about me. They hear my voice, and they think I must be deadposh. Because your voice trained, didn't you, when you were young? No, I sang. Right. That makes that extent, yeah. So I can project without knowing that I'm projecting, sort of thing. I've never had a problem making myself hurt. Let's put it that way. And you told me last time, you can take the girl out of the estate, but you can't take the estate out of the girl. Well, I think that's true. You can't be true. But it seems to me, speaking this week, when a plumber from Manchester, with a voice very different from yours, became the newest member of Parliament in the House of Commons for the Greens, of course, Hannah Spencer. There is a problem, isn't there, that she looks and sounds and has the heritage, if you like, that people used to associate with the Labour Party. And now they don't. I mean, that sounds neat, but I don't think it necessarily holds water, if you don't mind me saying. I think there's something in the fact that that speech sounded like the speech of a Labour person, which is new for the Greens. I think this kind of understanding of class is something which is a kind of new preoccupation. And that's a challenge for us, because we were, we have been the party that understands about the importance of standing up for working-class people. And we sometimes talk about it, here sometimes talks about having the most working-class cabinet ever, and talks about the background of all the people within the cabinet. It actually does an awful lot of people like me that are in the cabinet. We know who haven't necessarily kind of just glided along. I've actually had a fight to get to where we are. And that makes us the people that we are and gives us the understanding of politics that we have. But she spoke like a Labour MP, and she spoke with real confidence, and she spoke from the heart. And that was, that has huge charisma. And there is no reason why we shouldn't speak like that, too, because that is who we are. But you've got to look at that new green MP and a Spencer and think, we need people like that who sound like that. I think. I think what we need, I think we have the people, I think that we need to. mean what we say and say what we mean, and be confident in ourselves and like ourselves, and not be self-conscious. What you think the Labour Party has got to a stage where it sort of feels awkward about itself. I think that we have been trying to be something that we're not. And I don't think that we need to do that. I think that this was one of the things that, you know, has happened recently with Morgan McSweeney leaving, I think that he was trying to push us into a place that didn't come naturally to us. And I think therefore people didn't follow their instincts so much. Give an example, because there'll be lots of people listening, vaguely know that name, Morgan McSweeney, the former chief of staff who argued that Labour need to hover up. another dreadful piece of jargon, red wall voters, but traditional working class voters largely in the North of England, sometimes in the Midlands. But is it the issues we're talking about or the tone of voice? I think it's more than tone of voice. It's issues too. I think some of this social conservatism that was being promoted did not come naturally to us. We are not socially conservative party. On the shoes like. Oh, you know, pulling our punches on. I think that some of the things, some of the way in which we have expressed. I dread even saying this because, you know, the moment you say, you touch the green, green touch paper and all. But I think that we've ended up in the wrong place on trans and we've done that by treading very self-consciously and not actually following our hearts, which is that trans people are on the margins, they are vulnerable. If the Labour Party doesn't look after trans people, what are we about? Just starting over their rights. Yeah. And just looking after them, I mean, you know, they're most likely to get beaten up. The ones who have most likely to be have prejudiced against them, you know, seriously, we should not be indulging in anything that marginalises them even more. And what about immigration? Because, you know, the Home Secretary says. Yeah. look Labour values are the heart of her reforms. Yeah. That's what she argues. We have to be seen to bring her out order and control on the board. Is that right or is there danger that's pan- No, I think, no, no, I mean, listen, I think. to people's views you don't hold. I think that if you have any area of policy where everybody sees it that you don't have any control over it, you know? And if it's an area that can change a country quite a lot and there's no control over it, then people feel anxious and I understand that. And there's been so much publicity about the area of immigration and asylum that's not controlled the small boats. That has got people very anxious. Even if it's only a tiny proportion of immigration which in reality is, nevertheless, it's been the thing which has been, you know, upsetting people. And I understand why, because you don't want to have, you know, no control over a major change to your country. So then it's a question of how do you go about doing that? And you begin with that, which I agree with Shabana Ron, and I also agree that we must have an immigration policy in a asylum policy, which is firm and fair and fast. But there's a bottom. It needs to be fair. It needs to be fair. So some of the changes I am concerned about. So, for example, I've had people come to see me recently who have come to the country, have applied, you know, for asylum, let's say, and then they apply for this next stage, which is like an interim stage between, between applying for asylum and actually getting British citizenship. So called indefinitely, indefinitely. And the changes are going to be, you've got to be in this country for much longer before you get any proper settle status. And they've already been here for years. And some of the things that they'll be assessed on is, have you gone on to benefits? Well, I've got a guy who came here, claimed asylum, then got cancer, couldn't work, applied for benefits. So he's going to have to wait even longer before he gets his citizenship. It's not fair. It's not fair. I'm not saying that, you know, that we shouldn't look again at how long people need to wait before they get their settle status. But those who are already here, it's not fair. So don't come up with policies you think are unfair in order to try and win a political argument. I think we need to, yeah, we need to keep our feet on that. And is that a problem? Lucy Powell, the deputy leader, said the other day that some of the policies on migration are an, quote, a real concern to ethnic minority. I mean, it's in came up on the doorstep in that bi-lection reason. Yeah, I mean, it's things like this. So if you've got a relative friend, a neighbour, you know, who's going through all of this, you've got your neighbour who's got cancer, who's been here for years. You can see they're not being treated fairly, that there are these changes. And also, of course, the changes are not written out yet. There's still people are just talking about them. So they get, I've had letters from people who've got completely the wrong end of the stick. And it frightens them, you know, that we might be doing more than we actually are, because they also kind of half-listen to the way people talk. And they think, and perhaps the rhetoric of those who are interpreting what Labour is doing. And they get frightened. So you have to be really careful. And is it part of what's behind the Greens' political success? It's only one poll, but there was a poll this week, that showed the Greens were second-notty who, but to reform. Labour Party was in third. Nationally. And you could say that Jeremy Corbyn, who you served as Shedaforan Secretary, is pretty much the same coalition, isn't it? Urban, young, metropolitan, together with some in immigrant communities around the country. These are the people who are excited by Zat Palanski in the way that they were excited by Jeremy Corbyn. No, I think the coalition around Labour under Jeremy was pretty, pretty much broad of them that. It was very large. And remember, I think more people voted in 2017, voted Labour than in 24, when we. So our high watermark was 2017, and 2024, actually, we got much fewer votes. It was just, it had a different spread. So I don't think it's the same, I mean, obviously there's some people are the same. But if you got to learn from that, is I suppose, the one that's good? I think what we have to learn is that we are the coalition on the left. If you're going to have a system that has first passed the post, then what naturally comes from that is a coalition on the left and the coalition on the right. And if you want to keep a system that's first passed the post, then you need to remember you're a coalition, treat people with a bit of respect and understanding. Appreciate there'll be differences of view because you're the coalition on the left. But our strength is that we're the coalition on the left, and we have a chance of getting into power. And you look at other countries that don't have coalitions on the left, and it's very difficult for them to get power. You need to say, in other words, to green voters, not your back of a bunch of extremists, but you're welcome in our party. We'd like to have you. Well, what we should say is, look what we're doing. Look at all the things we're doing. We are leading. We are leading in Europe. We are leading in the world in terms of our, for example, our environmental policies. You should be with us. We're the party of the Greens. You know, we're the party of environmentalists. We are the party that takes seriously. A climate change and looking after the planet. Now, you, I hesitate to say this because I don't want to embarrass you, or indeed myself, but last I'm introduced you on this podcast. I said something about you riding high. You just had a successful standard at Prime Minister's questions, standing in for the opposition leader. And you were already being described as the next leader of the Labour Party. It's a harsh question, but what happened? Oh, that asked me. I think every few years the Labour Party gives me a kicking. I mean, what can I do? But I'm still here. It's a story that was a bit of an accident in that book that's been written about Keir Star. I'm Morgan McSwinney. The Keir Star were really meant to give you a ministerial job, not in the cabinet, but it sort of went wrong. I don't know. I honestly don't know. Nobody's ever explained anything to me. To me is that I don't know. It's a new centre list of jobs that you'd be perfectly happy to have. I said that. I said that I would do, you know, what do they want me to do? You know, I wasn't going to be in the cabinet. What do they want me to do? But it didn't work out. Nothing, no, nothing. So I stood for the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee instead. Is that a better job in the end? It's a fantastic job being Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. And what I'm about to say, I don't want to give any impression that it is anything other than that. And I am blessed to be doing it. And I have a great committee. And I hope that we do good work. And we work really hard. But, but. I have been in politics for 21 years. And I would love to have the opportunity to actually do something. I think when you're a Chair of the Committee, you influence those who can do things. And I haven't ever had the opportunity of being a Minister. Which is a shame, you know. I do, I mean, I've got over it, you know, when I didn't get a job, I was terribly upset. It was like a kind of grief. You know, I'm doing what I'm doing and I'm enjoying it. But I can't, my heart of hearts be honest and say, well, I never want to be a Minister anyway. Because that's not true. Yeah, it still would be nice. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you're in politics to do things, right? Well, that committee that you do, Chair, and Foreign Affairs, the Committee of the House of Commons, has just produced a report on a rather interesting subject, one very close to your heart, Europe. And your message appears to be, is this right, that you welcome the fact that Keir Starmer's taking a step towards Europe. You've said that already. But there's no doubt, got to be more clarity, there's got to be more vision. - Yeah, and there's got to be more, I think we've got to be more ambitious. I quite understand how we've ended up getting here. You know, a year ago, there was only a year ago, if you just mentioned the word, you know, reset Europe. And like, you know, half of newspapers would be calling us traitors 'cause we were selling out to Europe and half the papers would be calling us traitors, 'cause we weren't going far enough, and there was like nothing could be done. And so they said, we want to reset their relationship with Europe, we want to be friends with Europe, and the papers all went crazy. The people, the public, just shrugged, and just went, yeah, go on then, get on with it. And I think, you know, the government took heart from that and has been getting increasingly ambitious. But we have to remember this, Nick. Whilst we are all busy negotiating with ourselves as to what our position ought to be, we kind of forget, we have to negotiate with the Europeans, they're the ones who actually we need to do the negotiations with. And so we're still going through this kind of like therapy, nationally, of trying to work out, are we okay with asking for this, are we okay asking for that? And what happens is that we then, we can even say to the Europeans, you know, we think, there's a war going on in Ukraine, we're taking a leading role in defending Europe, we're, we're involved in what's called the Jeff already, we've, you know, et cetera, et cetera, we've got a very good-- - The Jeff is the joint expeditionary. - Yeah, we've got a very good industrial base when it comes to, comes to defense. You've got this fund of money you want to set up in order to buy and to develop defense away from the Americans. So you've got this, this fund, we know, we've jumped through a couple of hoops. Can we be on, can we be part of safe? And they go, no. (laughing) What? Why not? - Well, they wanted more money, didn't they? - Well, well, I-- - To charge us a price for being part of-- - I've been talking to many different countries about it, and they all struck their shoulders and said, we don't know how many, we don't understand why it didn't happen. And of course, what you need is just one major France to say no, and you end up getting excluded. - But overall, you think the government should have the courage of its convictions, not do low-key, low-profile negotiations, 'cause those are taking place about student exchanges, for example, about the rules around food standards. All that stuff is taking place at the moment. I think there's a treaty due to happen in the next couple of months. Do you think you want something bigger and bolder? - Well, no, what I'm saying is that I think we should have a long shopping list. I think that we should, when we went into the election, with just sort of four or five things, and the Europeans were always clear about what they wanted. They've got, if you look at what is it that we've actually achieved since we started these negotiations, they're all kind of still in process. We can't say we've been negotiating a year and we've got this now. And how do you get that to work with the strategy of needing to stay, and you've said it close enough to Trump that you've got a reasonable deal on tariffs, that he continues to contribute to the defense of Ukraine? - No, it's hard, but it's not impossible. I mean, it's the place we've always been in. We've always been in halfway between America and Europe. That is kind of our character. I mean, we Europeans, but we're also close to America. But is the way for Kierstammer to go full mark, can't it? Is it where, like the Prime Minister of Canada, who gave that very defined speech at Davos? I'm not cheated by lots of people on the centre-left of politics. Finally, somebody stood up to a Trump, or should Kierbie himself go about low-key? - He taught me in these absolute terms. I mean, like, what did Mark Karnie say once there was the attack on Iran? - He backed it. - Exactly. So, you know, this is not quite as sort of black and white as you paint things. So, no, you have to have a nuanced position, but as I say, with, I think, that we need to be clearer, more ambitious, go faster with Europe, because I think this is an opportunity for us to reset. And it's important for our economy. We really want to grow our economy, then, you know, our biggest trading partner is Europe. We need to make sure that we fix it. So, that has to be done. And in relation to the United States, with or without a trade deal, they are our biggest trading partner as an individual country. We invest hugely in America. America invests hugely in the UK, before we even had a treaty. And as for the American president, presidents come and presidents go, this one is when you have to stand up to, you know, when he's being impossible. - There's another subject on the agenda for the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the appointment of ambassadors. - Right, he is. - Following this scandal around Lord Mandelson. At the time, sort of remind you this, you did describe the appointment of Peter Mandelson as your ambassador, as inspired. - Yeah. - What do you think looking back? - So, I did, and that was, I think it was two days after he was appointed. So, at that point, I'm afraid, we hadn't looked into anything. And what we said was that it was a political appointment. And so, as a political appointment, he should come before the Select Committee. And we should then be able to ask him questions. And think how much better it would have been if we'd been able to do that. Because, frankly, we would have Googled him and looked up, you know, the history and so on. I mean, for example, I genuinely did not know that he had stayed in the Epstein's flat house after when Epstein was in jail. I mean, I have no problem with people standing by and I think they should stand by their friends when their friends are in trouble. But if their friends get convicted of a serious offense, that is a different matter. You don't stay in their house and you don't write what you did. So, anyway. You think it would have made a difference because the character argument is, look, the emails that have been revealed and been published were not out. So, you wouldn't have had access to them. You would have asked Peter Mandelson questions. He might have argued as he does now. I can't remember what I wrote in an email many, many years ago, or he might have lied. - No, no, but you see, we would have been able to ask him questions like, you know, about the friendship with Epstein, about the staying in the flat. Because that was in the FT. So, there was an article in the FT, which, I was gonna say, "Post me by." But, you know, but if we had had him in front of us, we would have done the work, we would have then said, what is this friendship with Epstein? Why are you staying in his house once he's been convicted? And he would have answered. And his answers would be in public. And we would then know, you know what I mean? And it would have been a way of holding him to account. And there would be a series of questions that you could ask. So, you can ask questions like, you know, the closeness in relation to other people, his behavior in relation to others. I'm quite sure there were people in the committee who would have been quite happy to ask questions like that. And there would be a way in which, as I say, I'm not saying that we would have stopped him being appointed to being ambassador, but it would have been able to put a proper context in. And we wouldn't just be relying on others saying, well, we asked in this and he said that because there's no record of it, whereas this would have been on the record. - He said something else in "Trieking" in the house comments at that time. Peter Mander some replaced Karen Pearce as ambassador. And you said, a generation of senior older women have been replaced by boys. - It's true. - Do you think there has been a kind of sexism, a clear out of women in senior diplomatic roles? - I don't know if it's sexism or not, but of the seven, the G7 countries, obviously, we're one. So they, I think all six of them were women ambassadors and the representative at the United Nations was also a woman. And now they're all men, apart from possibly one. And just that needs just pointing out. - And changing. - Karen Pearce is almost, you know, is a very impressive woman. I'm a big fan of Karen Pearce's. And I think, you know, she'd already, you know, started to develop a relationship with Trump and have been to Mar-a-Lago. And, you know, so if she couldn't do the job, that was unfortunate. And, you know, and therefore, that's why, when I heard she wasn't going to do it and Mandelson was again, I thought, yeah, actually, I can see why people have thought this. You need to have something inspired. We've just had this man elected to be president. We didn't think it was going to happen. We have to try and think for an appropriate response. And I can see why the thought processes to why Peter Mandelson would be, would be right. - So, as you keep reminding of you things, you said in the past. - It's fine. - I asked you back in 2018, why is there been no woman leader of the Labour Party? And at the time, I asked you because people thought you might be that leader of the Labour Party. But it still hasn't been. Will there be? - I know, I know. Well, look, I think, as I said at the time, am I still belief, we have had a changes in the Labour Party that have come from the ground up. And that means that it's a profound and lasting change. So it isn't just putting in a few women in a few places and, you know, so that it looks better and you look more modern as a party or anything like that. If you look at the groundswell, the members, the people who organise the local parties and then the councillors and then the members of Parliament and then the cabinet, there has been a wave going through the party, increasing numbers of women coming through and increasing the assertive. So it will come. It's taking far too long, but we're gonna get there. - I want to finally ask you about the language of politics. Because it seems to me that one reason that the minor parties, as they used to be called, are doing so well, is they've got the head people who talk fluent human. They talk fluent social media. Sometimes they talk in ways that make people like you, maybe like me with the backgrounds we've had, a bit uncomfortable. You were once called the Queen of Sass, 'cause you are a plain speaker. Do you got to relearn the language? Well, when I said earlier, I think that it's important that we say what we mean and mean what we say. And it is hard when you are under the level of scrutiny because, you know, because in the end what happens is that people want their politicians to be human, but they also want us to be perfect. So if you're ever misspeak, ever, it's for a friend, you know, you'll never be forgiven if you get a sentence wrong in the wrong order, you know, or you're a bit too sarcastic about, or you can be misinterpreted as, you know, there is, that's the, that's the high wire act. And we're too brutal and, and you can't be that brutal and then say, where are our politicians so boring? Emily Thornbury. Thank you for joining me on political thinking. Well, thank you for having me. I don't know about you, but I thought, as I pointed out to her, that Emily Thornbury was rather better at explaining the prime minister's policy in the war in Iran than he was. She wants a job. I wonder if you might be tempted to consider giving a one. Thanks for listening to this episode of Political Thinking. The producers were Daniel Kramer and Flora Murray. The editor is Jarls Edwards. If you haven't heard last week's episode, please do go back and listen. I spoke to the British Iranian comedian and actor Ahmed Jalili just hours before missile started to hit Tehran. He helped us understand why there are so many in the Iranian diaspora who were calling for military action against the country and illustrated how complex and nuanced the debate is about what might happen next. Also, you can listen to Radical, the podcast from my colleague Amal Rajan, which you can also find on BBC Sounds. This week he sits down with their Davies, Policy Director at the right-leaning anti-poverty think tank, the Center for Social Justice, to unpack the decline of marriage and family stability in the UK. It argues that this shift is a common thread running through the country's challenges in education, welfare and mental health. If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft turns out to be flawed? In 1999, four apartment buildings were blown up in Russia, hundreds killed. But 25 years on, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories, because these bombs, they're part of the origin story of one of the most powerful men in the world. Vladimir Putin. I'm Helena Merriman, and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss first time around? The history bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen first on BBC Sounds.