Starmer sagt, dass Großbritannien später in dieser Woche ein Treffen mit anderen Nationen über die Wiedereröffnung der Straße von Hormus veranstalten wird – britische Politik live
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/apr/01/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-iran-energy-bills-supermarket-cost-of-living-uk-politics-latest-news-updates?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Von AbbreviationsHot7662
10 Kommentare
If Trump pulls out just make a deal with Iran and move on. It’ll annoy Trump but he already hates us any way so it won’t make any difference. The US is for all intents and purposes no longer part of NATO and won’t come to our aid if an attack occurs so it’s not worth worrying about stuff like that.
It’s just whether you could get it past the hordes of Trump sychophants who seem to exist in this country these days, a disturbing amount of people seem to want us to send people to go die in Iran for some reason.
Starmer says he will push for a closer relationship with the EU at a summit coming up later this year.
“As the chancellor has rightly pointed out, Brexit did deep damage to our economy and the opportunities to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore.
So in the coming weeks, we will announce a new summit with our EU partners.
And I can tell you that at that summit the UK will not just ratify existing commitments made at last year’s summit.
We want to be more ambitious, closer economic cooperation, closer security cooperation, a partnership that recognises our shared values, our shared interest and our shared future.”
Correct decision, make an agreement with Iran to allow our ships to pass and toss USA and Israel out of any deal. If they want the straight open, they can sort out their own mess….
Good luck negotiating with radical theocratic dogmatics
and if that doesn’t work a strongly worded letter will follow
and some words may even be underlined
Work in commodities and we ran the numbers and it’s not so bad if we deal directly with Iran tbh
A $2 million toll per transit adds roughly $1 per barrel to oil shipped through Hormuz. On a tanker carrying 2 million barrels at $100+ per barrel, that’s essentially a 1% surcharge. For UKs energy bill, marginal but not catastrophic.
The only thing to think abt then is Trumps reaction to that/ what fury it would provoke haha, and we’d need to look at insurance and sanctions compliance risk so having formal contracts etc
Iran’s logic is transactional about who gets access. Iran’s foreign minister has explicitly said “only for the ships of those who are at war with us, this strait is closed” and that “some countries had negotiated with Iran on the matter.” The door is open to anyone willing to declare neutrality. France and Italy are already in discussions with them.
Sorry this may seem like a silly question. Do we get our oil directly from the strait? I’ve been checking maritime traffic for a bit and never seen a UK tagged tanker. I presume we get our oil elsewhere but obviously the hormuz being closed affects oil prices universally and therefore us
So my question is. If we have no tankers there. How will striking a deal with Iran help us?
I’m going to genuinely ask a question and it’ll sound inflammatory but I mean it as sincerely as I possibly can do at this moment in time.
Do you think that the UK should’ve made a deal with the Nazis?
To me – as an Iranian – the islamic regime which is a terrorist organisation that illegitimately claims leadership of Iran through rape, torture, and mass murder is not an organisation that needs to be negotiated with. It should be treated in the exact same way nazism is treated.
Now that isn’t to say that British boots should be on Iranian soil, but it also shouldn’t be the case where this government tries to make a deal with them and legitimises their absolute disdain for human rights and wild crimes against humanity.
Starmer himself refused to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation stating the law doesn’t allow him to do so when it involves individual states.
Firstly, nowhere in the terrorist act of 2000 does it say that meaning that this is a government policy interpretation as opposed to a statutory limit of the law.
Secondly, why then did David Lammy promise to proscribe the organisation when he was shadow foreign secretary when in opposition?
All of this points to the fact that Starmer’s government wants to negotiate with known terrorists which in my opinion is not conducive to the longevity and safety of Britain.
Edit: lol downvoted with no replies. Literally none of what I have written is factually incorrect. The IRGC accounts are in full swing.
It’s gonna get to the point where Trump starts bombing ships allowed through the strait out of spite.
Especially if the master negotiator himself can’t keep his finger off the trigger long enough to agree a deal for the US.
US illegally attacks Iran, Starmer blames Iran.
Straight forward victim blaming because he`s too cowardly to call out Trump ..
Starmer knows he`s a coward & he knows people rightly view him that way so i fully expect him to lash out in some macho kind of way to try big himself up.
He pick something he thinks he can tackle militarily & jump at the chance to be pictured in a Tank in camouflage gear ..
So what innocent harmless place could he pick on?
Maybe Wales would be to tough a nut to tackle militarily so maybe he`ll militarily occupy Anglesey claiming that Russia have plans to build a base there lol
He might fcuk about with the Falklands to try anger Argentina only to discover that Britain dont have enough ships this time to form a `Task Force.`
This of course is all a bit tongue in check but i do think Starmer will try something ridiculous & dangerous to big up his image.