Let us be frank: the prospect of a pro-Trump candidate winning the Colombian run-off has sent tremors through the British establishment. The Foreign Office is no doubt sweating into its Savile Row suits, fearing that a shift in Bogotá will unravel years of carefully constructed trade agreements. But is this panic warranted, or is it merely the tantrum of a ruling class that has lost its nerve? I say the latter.
First, let us understand what is at stake. Colombia, a nation long marred by violence and cocaine cartels, has in recent decades become a model of conservative economic reform. Its opening of markets to British goods – from whisky to financial services – was a triumph of liberal internationalism. But now a candidate who echoes the populist nationalism of Trump threatens to turn back the clock. Or so the narrative goes.
I smell the stench of intellectual decadence. The same elites who brought us the disastrous Iraq War and the financial crash of 2008 now lecture us about the dangers of populism. They have forgotten that nations, like men, have a right to self-determination. If Colombians choose a candidate who prioritises their own industries over British imports, that is not a sign of backwardness. It is a sign of healthy national pride. Indeed, the British Empire built its wealth on exactly such protectionist instincts. We have simply forgotten our own history.
Consider the parallels to the late Roman Republic. As Rome expanded, it absorbed foreign cultures and economies, creating a melting pot that diluted its identity. The result was stagnation and eventual collapse. Today, Britain faces a similar threat: we have outsourced our manufacturing, our agriculture, even our security. A Colombian shift away from globalism is not a crisis; it is a warning. If Bogotá can prioritise its own citizens, why can't London?
But the real issue here is not trade. It is the fear of a domino effect. If Colombia falls to populism, the elites worry that Mexico, Brazil, and perhaps even Europe will follow. This is the great terror of our age: the belief that democracy must be managed, that the people cannot be trusted with their own futures. I call this the 'soft totalitarianism of the bien-pensants'. They wrap their distrust in the language of stability, but it is merely the cowardice of men who have never had to fight for their own survival.
The British response should be measured, not hysterical. We should remind ourselves that trade agreements are not marital vows. They are contracts, to be renegotiated when circumstances change. If Colombia wants to raise tariffs on our cheese, let them. We will find other markets. Indeed, the rise of India and Africa offers ample opportunity for a nimble nation. The only danger is if we cling to outdated pacts like a drowning man to a piece of driftwood.
In the end, this is a test of British character. Will we moan about the loss of a few million pounds in exports, or will we seize the moment to rethink our entire economic model? I say: let Colombia have its Trumpian moment. It may be the kick we need to rediscover our own sense of national purpose. After all, the Fall of Rome was not caused by barbarians at the gates. It was caused by a lack of will among the Romans themselves.
So calm down, gentlemen. Pour a stiff drink and read some history. This is not the end of the world. It is the beginning of a new one.
