Andy Burnham became Prime Minister in July 2026 after replacing Keir Starmer. He previously criticised Donald Trump and said he would refuse to meet him when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester. Burnham is now due to hold his first in-person meeting with President Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York to discuss Ukraine, the Middle East and UK interests.
An old mayoral refusal to meet Donald Trump was recast here as an obstacle to governing, not a badge of principle. The room backed the meeting decisively, and its strongest instinct was that office changes the obligations attached to personal dislike.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case was blunt: “Part of the job.” Others gave that duty a diplomatic gloss, arguing that “Global politics is no place for holding on to grudges and name calling”, while the most substantive intervention said “Mature diplomacy means looking difficult leaders in the eye” when Ukraine, the Middle East and UK interests are at stake.
The No case was sparse and mostly expressive rather than strategic. One voter said, “We’re embarrassed enough by our sub-Prime Minister”, while another argued that Trump and his allies “should no longer be recognised by our state”; against the Yes side’s language of channels and national interest, it offered rejection rather than a plan for handling the relationship.
That distinction mattered. Even some Yes voters plainly expected an uncomfortable encounter — “It’s diplomacy, not primary school” — while others wanted the meeting precisely as a spectacle, hoping Burnham would be belittled or “get a thrashing off Trump”; the chamber agreed on contact, not on what dignity would look like afterwards.
The verdict was a demand for contact without affection: meet the difficult ally, and leave the old words outside the room.
“Part of the job.”
YES case · Slawomir · 7 respects
“We're embarrassed enough by our sub-Prime Minister.”
NO case · Jonathan · 0 respects
% voting yes, by leaning
This referendum settled before 29 September 2026, when refnation's current method began, so its result is a plain count of Yes and No. It is kept here as an archive: refnation's record starts on 29 September 2026.
Should the UK ban Chinese investment in key industries like energy and telecoms?
Foreign Policy · 2,224 votes · Yes 66%
Would it be good for the UK if Trump's Republicans lost control of Congress in the US midterms?
Foreign Policy · 2,133 votes · Yes 70%
Should the UK lead a drive to give the Commonwealth’s poorest countries longer to repay their debts?
Foreign Policy · 2,258 votes · Yes 59%
Should the UK rejoin the European Union?
Foreign Policy · 2,120 votes · Yes 53%
Should the UK formally apologise for its role in the transatlantic slave trade?
Foreign Policy · 2,039 votes · No 64%
Was the Chancellor right to give Ukraine an extra £10bn of support in the Budget?
Foreign Policy · 2,045 votes · Yes 57%
Should the UK pay compensation to countries like Pakistan for climate damage?
Foreign Policy · 2,047 votes · No 92%
Should Ukraine join NATO?
Foreign Policy · 1,980 votes · Yes 56%
28 Opinions
Part of the job.
Global politics is no place for holding on to grudges and name calling. Diplomacy is about smoothing any friction, and you can't do that if you refuse to speak.
Burnham must meet Trump, it's what he's paid for. Burnham's rise from mayor of Manchester to PM proved he has no principles.
With the war in Ukraine and Middle East stability hanging in the balance, a British Prime Minister must be in the room fighting for our national interests. Mature diplomacy means looking difficult leaders in the eye, not hiding in the corridor to protect personal pride after old mayoral comments
It’s ridiculous to suggest that the UK PM should not meet the elected leader of the USA, one of our key allies.
Of COURSE he should. Its the jaw:jaw thing.
The purpose of the UNGA is to meet other leaders and to make a boring international speech which is, in fact, purely for domestic consumption Yes he should meet Trump, and others. He should stand up for British interests too, but he won't. He's as bad as the last one.
I may dislike Trump and everything he stands for and I'm pretty sure our pm does too, but true diplomacy requires leaders to keep diplomatic channels with all leaders in the world, and through trade etc our country can benefit from America among others.
Why not? He’s is a puppet of the WEF & other Global bodies but we don’t have anybody else. I hope Trump tells him how it is on Chagos Free Speech Censorship etc and he comes away with a nose coloured red as I cannot use English idioms on this PC US designed software!
Yes, of course our head of government should meet and talk to all other heads of government, no matter if they hold different opinions. To do otherwise suggests a level of churlishness unbecoming in any national leader.