A Trump administration may force Prime Minister Keir Starmer to choose between his country’s most powerful ally and its biggest trading partner.
When Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain joined President Emmanuel Macron of France in Paris last week to celebrate Armistice Day — the first British leader to do so since Winston Churchill in 1944 — it was a striking illustration of his Labour government’s desire to reset relations with Europe.
But despite the rich symbolism and the palpable warmth between two centrist leaders, the visit was overshadowed by Donald J. Trump’s victory in the American presidential election a week earlier. With his history of antagonism toward the European Union, Mr. Trump’s return complicates Mr. Starmer’s intention to “turn a corner on Brexit” and pursue what he called a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to rebuild ties with the rest of Europe.
What could have been an economically profitable, if politically delicate, bridge-building exercise for Britain’s Labour government now threatens to become more of a binary choice between the E.U. and the United States.
Closer British trade ties with Europe, warn diplomats and people in Mr. Trump’s orbit, could come at the expense of relations with the incoming American president, who is a confirmed Brexiteer and cheered when his last British counterpart, Boris Johnson, picked fights with the E.U.
“If the U.K. re-engages in these political and economic ties with the E.U., it makes it less likely that Trump will go for a free-trade agreement with the U.K,” said Stephen Moore, a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign.
“You guys have to decide,” he said in an interview, addressing the British public. “Do you want to be more like Europe or the U.S.?”
For now, British officials reject that as a false choice. Mr. Starmer has balanced his diplomatic outreach to Europe with an assiduous effort to cultivate Mr. Trump. The two met for dinner in Trump Tower in September, during which Mr. Trump told Mr. Starmer, “We are friends,” according to a person who was in the room.
Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party grandee under consideration to be Britain’s next ambassador to Washington, recently said on a Times of London podcast that in the three-way relationship between Britain, Europe and the United States, “We have got to find a way to have our cake and eat it.”
Such an outcome, economists said, could feature advances on two tracks: With Europe, Britain could take more aggressive steps to smooth trade friction, like more closely aligning rules on agriculture, linking carbon tax systems, and allowing greater mobility across borders for young people. With the United States, it could pursue, if not a full-scale free-trade agreement, a partial deal that would cover strategically important areas like the digital economy.
A closer economic relationship with the European Union need not come at the expense of good relations with the United States, said Marley Morris, an associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London.
Yet even when Britain was more ideologically in sync with the United States during Mr. Johnson’s premiership and Mr. Trump’s first term, the two sides failed to negotiate a trade agreement. This time, Mr. Trump’s trade policy seems more focused on his plan to impose across-the-board tariffs of up to 20 percent on trading partners, including, potentially, the E.U. and Britain.
In that scenario, diplomats said, Mr. Starmer’s best hope may not be a trade deal but rather targeted exemptions from tariffs.
At one level, far-reaching tariffs by the United States on the European Union “could be an unintentional gift to the U.K.,” said Abraham L. Newman, a political scientist at Georgetown University. It would put a “lot of pressure on the E.U. to expand its market,” he said, “and the U.K. is an obvious opportunity for them.”
Tariffs push “them together in a way that they’ve been pushed apart in the last few years,” Professor Newman added.
But while Britain and the European Union could make common cause in responding to American tariffs, it is equally likely that a new wave of protectionism could divide them, diplomats said, particularly if Britain tried to cut its own deal with Mr. Trump that would exempt it from certain tariffs.
“If the U.K. did it alone, there would be a price to pay,” said Peter Ricketts, a former British national security adviser. “The U.S. would demand concessions, like access for its genetically modified beef, which could create problems with U.K. consumers and would cause problems with Europe.”
Britain will not be able to lift regulations when it comes to trade with the United States while still complying with the European Union’s rules, said Mark Blyth, professor of international economics at Brown University.
“If you bandwagon with Trump,” Professor Blyth said, “you’re never going to get E.U. market access.”
That pressure could intensify further if Mr. Trump stokes new trade tensions with China. At a Group of 20 summit in Brazil this week, Mr. Starmer met with President Xi Jinping of China and declared afterward that he wanted “consistent, durable, respectful” relations between Britain and China.
But Kim Darroch, who served as the British ambassador to Washington during the first Trump term, said: “If the U.S. gets into a trade war with China, they may well come to Europe and the U.K. and say, ‘You need to join us in tariffs.’ There are some really hard choices coming down the road.”
If Britain is forced to make that choice, some argue that it should throw its lot in with Europe. Trade across the English Channel is more than two and a half times greater than that between Britain and the United States. British exports to the E.U. totaled 342 billion pounds, or $433 billion last year, 42 percent of its total exports. Imports from the E.U. reached 466 pounds, or $590 billion, 52 percent of its total.
Rebuilding those ties would help recapture some of the growth lost because of Britain’s departure from the E.U. A thicket of red tape, border delays and extra costs now ensnarl cross-channel trade. British exporters complain that they must monitor gas usage to comply with the E.U.’s carbon border tax. Shellfish exporters note that veterinarians must certify shipments of crabs and lobsters headed to France and Spain.
While the trade negotiations have so far been limited to relatively minor issues like accepting European veterinary safety standards, the British Chamber of Commerce has set out a long list of reforms that could go much further in smoothing trade.
Mr. Trump’s skepticism of NATO, and the growing belief that Europe needs to rely less on the United States for its security, is a further incentive to cooperate. Together, Britain and France account for half of Europe’s military capabilities, at a time when security and economic policies are more closely intertwined.
François Hollande, the former French president, said recently that Mr. Starmer “needs to position himself as a European leader.”
Drawing closer to Europe would not be easy for the prime minister, even without Mr. Trump. Britain’s Tory-leaning press remains openly hostile to the E.U. and will be quick to condemn his rapprochement. Labour politicians worry that a pro-Europe strategy could hurt the party with voters in the so-called “red wall” districts, many of whom backed Brexit but came back to Labour in the last election.
Britain is also instinctively reluctant to do anything that could jeopardize its “special relationship” with the United States, even if successive American presidents have seemed less nostalgic about it.
“I’m sure that for the next while, Starmer & Co. will do all they can to get a good deal from Europe, as well as the U.S.,” said Peter Kellner, former head of the polling firm, YouGov. “But I think there may come a point where they can’t ride both horses, and they will have to choose.”
