Andrew Neil mocks Labour’s Emily Thornberry as she says Germany ‘always being a key ally’

Labour MP Dame Emily Thornberry has come under fire after describing Germany as a country that has “always been a key ally” of Britain, prompting veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil to deliver a pointed historical rebuke.

The exchange has reignited debate over Britain’s complicated relationship with Germany, the lessons of the Second World War and the language politicians use when discussing European security. It also comes as the Government seeks to strengthen relations with Berlin amid continuing concerns over Russia’s war in Ukraine and the future of European defence.

Thornberry made the remarks during a meeting between members of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and their counterparts from Germany’s Bundestag. Welcoming the German delegation to Westminster, she reportedly described the occasion as “a unique and historic day” and said: “We are so honoured.”

She also declared that Germany “is and always has been a key ally”.

For Neil, however, that description overlooked a substantial part of British and German history.

Responding on X, the broadcaster wrote: “I guess she was absent when they did German history at school. Lady Thornberry. The Lord Halifax de nos jours.”

The reference to Lord Halifax was particularly pointed. Halifax served as Britain’s Foreign Secretary during the period when the government pursued appeasement towards Adolf Hitler’s Germany, a policy that has since become one of the most controversial episodes in British diplomatic history.

Neil’s intervention turned a diplomatic meeting into a political talking point, raising questions about whether Thornberry’s wording was simply an expression of modern cooperation or an overly sweeping description of the past.

Emily Thornberry said Germany had ‘always been a key ally’ (Image: Getty)

Yet the wider story is more complicated than a clash over a single sentence. Britain and Germany have been enemies, uneasy neighbours and close allies at different points in their shared history. Understanding that transformation is central to the security relationship both governments are now attempting to strengthen.

Andrew Neil’s historical jibe puts Thornberry under pressure

Neil’s criticism centred on the word “always”.

There is little dispute that Germany is an important British ally today. Both countries belong to NATO, cooperate on European security and share an interest in deterring further Russian aggression. Germany is also one of Britain’s major economic partners.

But describing the relationship as one of uninterrupted alliance ignores the wars and political upheavals that shaped relations between the two countries.

Britain and Germany fought on opposing sides during both the First and Second World Wars. During the Second World War, Nazi Germany launched an extensive bombing campaign against British cities, including London, Coventry and other urban centres. Thousands of civilians were killed, and communities suffered widespread destruction.

Against that background, Neil’s response suggested that Thornberry’s description was historically careless.

His comparison with Halifax was intended as a sharp political insult rather than a neutral historical observation. Halifax was associated with efforts to reach an accommodation with Hitler before the outbreak of the Second World War, although the policies and decisions of the period involved several British political figures and cannot fairly be attributed to one individual alone.

The reference was nevertheless effective as a rhetorical attack because it connected Thornberry’s language about Germany with one of the most contentious debates in British history: whether the pursuit of peace before 1939 helped prevent war temporarily or encouraged Hitler to believe that further expansion would meet insufficient resistance.

That historical association gives Neil’s criticism a significance beyond the immediate meeting.

However, Thornberry’s statement should also be considered in context. She was addressing German parliamentary counterparts at a diplomatic gathering, where expressions of friendship and cooperation are customary. Her apparent intention was to emphasise the importance of the contemporary partnership rather than provide a detailed account of every stage of Anglo-German relations.

The controversy therefore rests partly on the difference between diplomatic language and historical precision.

Lord Halifax and the legacy of appeasement

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (Image: Getty)

Lord Halifax, who served as Foreign Secretary from 1938 to 1940, remains closely associated with Britain’s pre-war policy of appeasement.

During the 1930s, the British Government faced the growing threat posed by Hitler’s territorial ambitions. The memory of the First World War was still powerful, public opinion was wary of another major conflict, and Britain was concerned about its military preparedness.

Against that background, appeasement was pursued by political leaders who hoped that concessions and negotiations might prevent another European war.

The policy reached its most famous moment in September 1938, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French leaders accepted the Munich Agreement. The agreement permitted Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia with a substantial ethnic German population.

Czechoslovakia was not in a position to prevent the agreement, and the settlement became a defining example of a great-power decision imposed at the expense of a smaller country.

Chamberlain returned to Britain claiming that the agreement had secured peace, but Hitler’s ambitions extended well beyond the Sudetenland. German forces occupied the remaining Czech lands in March 1939, demonstrating that the Munich settlement had failed to provide the lasting security its supporters had hoped for.

Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939 prompted Britain and France to declare war.

Halifax remained Foreign Secretary during the early stages of the conflict. When Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in May 1940, Halifax was involved in the intense debates within the government about Britain’s response to Germany’s military advances.

He subsequently served as British ambassador to the United States, helping maintain the relationship with Washington during a crucial period of the war.

The legacy of appeasement remains contested in its details, but it is widely remembered as a warning about the risks of making concessions to an aggressive power without reliable guarantees that it will honour an agreement.

Neil’s comparison invoked that legacy to challenge the suggestion that Britain and Germany had always enjoyed an alliance.

From wartime enemies to post-war partners

The modern relationship between Britain and Germany was built after the destruction of the Second World War.

Nazi Germany’s defeat in 1945 left much of Europe devastated. Germany was divided into occupation zones, and the emergence of the Cold War gradually transformed the strategic priorities of Western governments.

The former enemies increasingly found themselves facing a common challenge in the Soviet Union.

West Germany joined NATO in 1955, becoming part of the Western defence system. Britain and West Germany subsequently developed closer military, diplomatic and economic relationships, while European integration helped establish a framework for cooperation between countries that had previously fought devastating wars.

German reunification in 1990 marked another major turning point. The reunified country became an increasingly influential political and economic power within Europe, while remaining firmly integrated into NATO and European institutions.

The transformation was significant precisely because it was not inevitable.

It required political decisions, reconciliation, economic cooperation and the development of institutions designed to reduce the likelihood of future conflict.

For modern British governments, the relationship with Germany is therefore often presented as evidence that historic enemies can become reliable partners.

That argument does not require pretending that the two countries have always been allies. Indeed, acknowledging the history makes the achievement of post-war reconciliation more meaningful.

Thornberry’s wording may have been intended to celebrate that modern partnership, but the criticism highlights why precision matters when historical relationships are discussed in public.

Why Germany matters to Britain’s security today

The diplomatic controversy comes at a time when European security has returned to the centre of British foreign policy.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 transformed the security environment across Europe. Governments have faced renewed pressure to strengthen military capabilities, protect critical infrastructure and prepare for threats ranging from cyberattacks to sabotage.

Britain and Germany have important roles to play in that response.

Both countries are NATO members and have an interest in maintaining the alliance’s credibility. Both also recognise that European security depends on cooperation between governments that possess different military capabilities, economic resources and geographical advantages.

Germany’s position in central Europe gives it strategic importance, while its industrial capacity and economic influence make it a major contributor to European defence and resilience.

Britain, meanwhile, retains significant military capabilities and an established intelligence relationship with European and North American partners.

Closer coordination can improve defence planning, support Ukraine and help protect infrastructure from hostile activity.

These shared interests explain why British ministers have increasingly emphasised the importance of the relationship with Berlin.

They also demonstrate why historical disputes, while important, should not obscure the practical demands of contemporary security policy.

The relevant question for the Government is not whether Britain and Germany have always been allies. They plainly have not. It is whether cooperation between the two countries strengthens Britain’s security and advances its interests today.

The 2025 treaty signals closer cooperation

The original report highlights a bilateral treaty signed by Britain and Germany in July 2025, designed to strengthen cooperation across defence, security, economic growth and other areas.

Such agreements reflect the recognition that modern security challenges rarely respect national borders.

Military threats may involve conventional forces, cyber operations, disinformation campaigns or attempts to disrupt energy supplies and other critical infrastructure. Responding effectively can require intelligence sharing, joint planning, industrial cooperation and sustained political coordination.

A closer relationship with Germany can also support Britain’s broader European engagement following its departure from the European Union.

Although Britain is no longer an EU member, it remains geographically and economically connected to the continent. European instability can affect British trade, energy security, migration pressures and defence requirements.

Cooperation with Berlin therefore has practical value beyond diplomatic symbolism.

At the same time, agreements between governments do not remove every disagreement. Britain and Germany may differ over spending priorities, industrial policy, military procurement or the appropriate balance between national and collective action.

A mature alliance allows for those differences while maintaining cooperation on shared interests.

That is why the relationship should be judged by its practical outcomes rather than by the language used during a parliamentary meeting.

Thornberry’s comments expose a wider political divide

The reaction to Thornberry’s remarks also reflects a broader debate about how British politicians should discuss history while pursuing modern international partnerships.

One argument holds that diplomatic language should emphasise reconciliation and common interests. From this perspective, highlighting Germany’s present role as an ally helps reinforce the partnership needed to confront contemporary threats.

Another view insists that political leaders must be precise about the past, particularly when dealing with a country whose previous governments brought Europe into devastating wars.

Both positions contain a legitimate concern.

Diplomacy requires the ability to build relationships without allowing historical grievances to dominate every discussion. But historical awareness is also important because it explains why international institutions, collective defence and credible deterrence matter.

The lesson of the Second World War is not that Britain should regard Germany as a permanent adversary. Nor is it that the two countries should overlook the past in the name of modern cooperation.

Rather, the experience demonstrates the importance of understanding how political decisions, security guarantees and the behaviour of aggressive states can shape the course of events.

Neil’s criticism drew attention to the risks of using a word such as “always” when describing a relationship that has changed dramatically over time.

However, the exchange does not establish that Thornberry intended to minimise wartime suffering or endorse the appeasement policies associated with Halifax. Without further evidence, such conclusions would go beyond what the reported remarks demonstrate.

A diplomatic meeting becomes a domestic political row

The incident also illustrates how quickly a diplomatic statement can become a domestic political controversy.

Social media encourages short, memorable exchanges, and Neil’s reference to Halifax provided an immediately recognisable historical comparison. Rather than focusing exclusively on the meeting’s discussions about Ukraine and European security, attention shifted towards Thornberry’s choice of words.

That shift can be politically useful for critics seeking to challenge a government or opposition politician. A historical analogy can frame a complicated issue in a way that is easy to communicate and difficult to ignore.

But it can also oversimplify the subject.

The appeasement debates of the 1930s took place under circumstances very different from those facing Britain and Germany today. The present relationship is embedded in NATO, extensive economic ties and decades of post-war cooperation.

Drawing a direct parallel between a modern expression of diplomatic friendship and pre-war appeasement risks confusing two fundamentally different situations.

There is a distinction between acknowledging Germany as a key ally today and assuming that every German government throughout history has pursued Britain’s interests.

Likewise, there is a distinction between celebrating reconciliation and forgetting the events that made reconciliation necessary.

The controversy is most useful when it encourages that distinction rather than turning history into a weapon for personal attacks.

Why historical accuracy still matters

For a senior politician responsible for foreign affairs, words carry particular weight.

Britain’s relationship with Germany is not simply a matter of national memory. It influences how the country understands European security, international institutions and the importance of alliances.

A statement that Germany has “always” been a key ally may be intended as diplomatic shorthand, but it is historically inaccurate if interpreted literally.

The two countries have fought against one another in major wars, and their modern partnership emerged only after profound political and institutional changes.

Recognising that history does not weaken the contemporary alliance. It helps explain why the alliance is significant.

The same principle applies to the lessons of appeasement. The Munich Agreement is frequently invoked in modern debates about deterrence, negotiations and territorial aggression. Yet historical analogies should be used carefully, with attention to the differences between the circumstances being compared.

Politicians who invoke history need to explain what lessons they believe it offers rather than relying on familiar names as rhetorical shortcuts.

Neil’s reference to Halifax was a pointed example of how such comparisons can be used to challenge an opponent. But the broader discussion should go beyond whether Thornberry chose her words poorly.

The important question is how Britain can maintain strong alliances while remaining clear-eyed about the historical experiences that shaped them.

The relationship is stronger because it changed

Ultimately, Britain and Germany have built a substantial partnership precisely because their relationship was not always peaceful.

The post-war settlement, Germany’s integration into NATO and European cooperation helped transform a history of conflict into one of shared security and economic ties.

That achievement should not be understated.

As European governments confront Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a changing international security environment, cooperation between London and Berlin is likely to remain important. Both countries have strong reasons to coordinate their policies, strengthen defence capabilities and support the stability of the wider European region.

Thornberry’s remarks were intended to underline that modern partnership, while Neil’s response highlighted the historical complexity behind it.

The broadcaster’s jibe has generated a political row, but the exchange also offers a reminder that diplomatic language should be both welcoming and accurate.

Germany is a key British ally today. It has not always been one, and the path to the present relationship was marked by conflict, tragedy and difficult political decisions.

Recognising that distinction does not undermine the alliance. It gives the partnership its proper historical context.

For British politicians, the challenge is to celebrate the cooperation that exists now without rewriting the past. That is a more demanding task than delivering a memorable diplomatic phrase, but it is also essential to understanding the security relationship on which both countries increasingly depend.