What is Starmer's rule book he is following?

 It is totally clear that Starmer doesnt seem to be following any logical rule book. I know humans can quite happily have conflicting beliefs but this seems more complex than that.

I suspect Starmer is absolutely not an imperialist hankering for the good old days of the British empire. Quite the opposite - he seems to want to dismantle anything to do with Britain's hayday - except that is for soft diplomacy.  I'm inclinded to believe that Starmer has a self loathing for Great Britain and that penance is the only way forward.

It's been an eventful start to 2026 and it has exposed some of the turmoil his poor little mind must be going through.

On the one hand he says he respects International law (whilst just about every country that matters is busy ignoring it) yet ironically Starmer is busy ignoring domestic law for example by cancelling democratic elections, removing the rights to trial by jury etc.

If we are entering a new era where Trump has given the green light to simply go in and kidnap foreign leaders then surely Russia and China will now feel it's OK to do the same.  I am secretly hoping France will come in and kidnap the UK cabinet as part of the one-in one-out deal. 

Soft power is so last year....

What is clear is that where the rule of International Law is not being respected, the UK can no longer rely on that or soft diplomacy. History is littered with countries and empires, that believed in diplomacy, that no longer hold power. Not every world leader is trustworthy.  Clearly Starmer is naïve in this respect and is open to being  exploited.

The latest aspect of his (dis)respect for international law is the UK assistance to the US in seizing the Bella 1 / Marinera tanker. The vessel was in international waters so the UK has potentially assisted in an act of Piracy under international law. Although international law allows sovereign states to seize pirate vessels, there are question marks about whether this was a pirate vessel - yes it changed it's registration mid journey however it is legally permissible to do so if a strict sale process was followed eg notorised bill of sale. At the moment this is very unclear what has happened. If the vessel fraudulently changed the registration then the seizure action was legal and not piracy. If the vessel legally changed the registration in international waters then Starmer is assisting piracy in the high seas.  As a lawyer with supposedly high regard for international law, you would expect him to have attention to detail in this matter. However it does seem that Starmer is not one for details.

So returning to the world order - I would go so far as to say the rule book has just changed.

The Chagos deal (or should than be Chaos deal)  is another example. Starmer is either a pathetic negotiator or views Britain as weaker than Mauritius. It's a terrible deal yet he is blindly ploughing forward when the Chagosians are opposing it.  They have elected a government in exile who have unanimously voted to remain British.  The UN has advised Starmer not to proceed. The US don't support the deal. Yet on it trundles.

Of course Starmer is defending Denmark's control of Greenland which has been associated with it since 1813 yet he doesn't defend British ownership of Chagos which has been held since 1814. Maybe that year makes all the difference. 

Why carry on? Is it stubbornness?  Is it a belief in the rule of International law? Is it a misplaced belief in fairness? Starmer often cites "fairness" as a core personal belief and a guiding principle for his government yet the world is not fair and doesn't play by the rules.  Surely he would have discovered this as a lawyer? Given the whole Chagos thing is about the Chagosian people you would think they would be part of the deal and a key fairness consideration - but no - it's in favour of Mauritius.  When the government attempts to block domestic judges from representing the Chagosians it does smell of contradiction.  Where is the fairness in that? Where is the voice and opinion of the Chagosian people? Silenced by the dictator ?

I suspect that this is another Starmer trait - he had made a promise to Mauritius to give them this amazing deal and he doesnt want to break the promise regardless who it hurts. Yet more ideological beliefs that are at odds with what is now happening. 

Once the deal is done I suspect Trump will decide that Mauritius is a drug cartel and then invade Mauritius and seize the Chagos islands and pocket the cash we will owe him....

Last November, Baroness Chapman (Labour) said ‘it’s really important that we don’t allow the Chagossian community to have the impression a consultation or referendum held now would in any way be able to affect a treaty that has already been agreed between two governments.’.  Clearly Starmer's belief in fairness does not extend to Chagosians.....

Their treatment reminds me of the UK court system.  I'm aware of someone being fined £50,000 for a health and safety breach yet the victims got a few hundred pounds in compensation. The fine goes to the state whilst the victims suffer.....

How does the Chagos deal make Britain look on the world stage - appearance being a  key aspect of soft diplomacy? It makes us look weak, stupid, unfair and willing to suck up the terms of any deal. So much for Great Britain....

This will open the flood gates to the Gibraltar, Falklands, slavery reparations and anything else other world governments care to throw at us.

Similarly Starmer is trying to rejoin the EU via the back door. This is not the will of the people. Here he is acting like a dictator.  Again he is either a terrible negotiator or has misguided belief that the EU is superior to Great Britiain.  He openly tells the EU in advance what he wants - not a very good negotiation strategy - and then blindly accepts the terrible deal they put forward to punish the UK for leaving the EU.  Maybe he should read Trump's Art of the Deal.  However I suspect he views that book with contempt.

The reality is the EU is a failing organisation. France and Germany have not grown at the same pace as the global economy since the formation of the EU. Starmer inherited the fastest growing nation in the G7 when he came to power - clearly leaving the EU achieved something. In the meantime Starmer has managed to squander that advantage and made the UK the slowest growing economy in the G7. Sure the EU is a large trading partner but even when we were part of the EU they conspired to disadvantage the UK compared to other EU countries. It was never a meeting of equals. Why would it be any different if we rejoined?

So what have I gleaned about Starmer's beliefs

1/ He believes in fairness - provided it's his version of what is fair

2/ He believes in diplomacy and debate not action - I suppose not a surprise given he is allegedly a lawyer

3/ He believes in following the rules - sadly the rest of the world is now ignoring them

4/ He believes in trust and "my word in my bond" - good values to have in a equal relationship but also can be a millstone in a volatile world. Naïvity is a word that springs to mind. Sun Tzu: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"