Trump says he will meet Starmer in Scotland visit, expects trade talks
A White House official said Trump plans to visit his golf properties in Scotland late this month, recreating a trip he made in 2016 during his first run for the presidency.
Trump plans to visit both his Turnberry and Aberdeen golf properties on a trip expected to last from July 25-29, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Asked by reporters about the trip, Trump said he is set to meet Starmer on the trip.
He and Starmer announced a deal on June 16 on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada that reaffirmed quotas and tariff rates on British automobiles and eliminated tariffs on the U.K. aerospace sector. But the issue of steel and aluminum remains unresolved.
"We are going to have a meeting with him, probably in Aberdeen. And we're going to do a lot of different things, also refine the trade deal that we've made," Trump said.
Trump visited both golf courses during his successful run for a first term in 2016, using the opportunity to praise Britain's "Brexit" vote to part ways with the European Union. As he toured the grounds at Turnberry then, he was accompanied by bagpipers in kilts.
The Turnberry course on the west coast of Scotland has been the site of the Open Championship four times, the last one being in 2009. Trump bought it in 2014.
The Republican president will make a state visit to Britain September 17-19 as the guest of King Charles at Windsor Castle.
The late Queen Elizabeth had welcomed Trump to Buckingham Palace for a three-day state visit in June 2019 during his first term in office, during which he had a private lunch with the sovereign and had tea with Charles, who was then heir.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: How Liverpool can afford to break their transfer record twice in the same window as the Reds 'eye £120m swoop for Alexander Isak'
The record-breaking sums Liverpool are spending this summer has raised questions among rival fans as the Premier League champions prepare to submit their next big-money offer. After months of quiet speculation, Tuesday brought chatter over the Reds interest in Newcastle's Alexander Isak to the light in spectacular fashion, with reports indicting that the Anfield club are preparing a £120million bid. Ignoring for a moment the Magpies' refusal to entertain a sale, a move of that size would see the Reds break the British transfer record for a second time this summer - having paid £116m to bring Florian Wirtz to Merseyside. In addition to the German, Liverpool have spent a further £65m on the acquisitions of Jeremie Frimpong, Milos Kerkez and Giorgi Mamardashvili. It's a level of spending that is unprecedented for a club that, perhaps wrongly, is regarded as one of the most frugal at the elite level. This perception, contrasted with the comparatively ordinary market behavior of their rivals in England and Europe, has raised questions over the club's financial position, particularly with respect to the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules. But there is little reason to resort to conspiracy. The answer is rather straightforward: Liverpool are one of the highest revenue-generating clubs in world football, coming off a very successful season in which they spent barely anything. The club is forecasted to make a profit for the 2024-25 campaign, a season in which they signed only Federico Chiesa from Juventus. The Italian arrived for a guaranteed fee of £10m, spread over his four-year contract, resulting in an amortisation cost of £2.5m. Liverpool also returned to the Champions League during this period and pocketed more than £85m, with an impressive League Phase offsetting earnings missed out on by their early last-16 exit. Then comes the league campaign which is estimated to have earned the club around £185m, thanks to their fees from domestic and international markets, equal share payments and prize money. The Reds have also continued to be impressive sellers. Already this summer, academy graduates Jarell Quansah and Caoimhin Kelleher have been sold for £30m and £18m respectively. These sales, in addition to the fees expected for the likes of Harvey Elliot and Tyler Morton, who have also been linked with moves, represent pure profit. Liverpool also have a couple of high value assets in their squad, namely Darwin Nunez and Luis Diaz. While the Reds have been adamant that the Colombian is not for sale and have rebuffed several approaches from clubs such as Barcelona and Bayern Munich, Nunez is clearly available. The Anfield club could not agree on a fee with Napoli for the striker but reported interest from Saudi Arabia increases the likelihood that they will recoup a sizeable portion of the £85m spent to sign him in 2022. Liverpool need to secure a £31.8m fee before it can record profits, as the 26-year-old signed a six-year contract prior to the Premier League and UEFA capping amortisation at five years. Premier League clubs are permitted to incur losses of up to £105m over a three-year period, with deductions allowed for investments in infrastructure, the academy, women's team and community initiatives. From 2021-22 to 2023-24, after allowable deductions referenced by football finance expert Swiss Ramble, the Reds had a positive PSR position of £48m, which when added to the permitted amount, gave Slot's side headroom of £153m. Given that revenue for the 2024-25 season is likely to exceed £700m, and some estimates claim that the Reds could post profits as high as £50m, the club could theoretically spend another £200m in the window and still be PSR compliant. If Isak was to sign for £120m his amortised transfer fee would be £24m per year and take the total amortised costs to around £62m. Wages have continued to rise at the club as star players have aged while continuing to perform at high level. But this too raises little concern, even with the figure projected to top £400m, given their strong financial situation.
Evening Standard
10 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Labour ‘only just getting started' says Starmer as he faces ‘tax raid' questions
Sir Keir was responding to Mrs Badenoch during their final Prime Minister's Questions exchange before the recess, after the Conservative leader said: 'It's the end of term, so why don't we go through his end-of-term scorecard? The economy is contracting; inflation, highest in the G7; unemployment up every month under this Government; spending out of control, borrowing costs more expensive than Greece, and this is just the first year.'
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
How an email error sparked a secret scramble to bring Afghans to Britain
British governments past and present face allegations of avoiding scrutiny and undermining democracy after the revelation that thousands of Afghans have been resettled in the U.K under a program that was hidden from the media, the public and lawmakers in Parliament. Key information was also kept from the Afghans themselves, who had assisted U.K. forces and whose personal details had been disclosed in a huge data leak. Many plan to sue the British government for putting them in danger from the Taliban. Some are left in Afghanistan as the current British government says the resettlement program will end. Here's what happened in an extraordinary chain of events. An email error with huge consequences The saga was triggered by the chaotic Western exit from Afghanistan in August 2021 as the Taliban, ousted from power 20 years earlier, swept across the country, seized Kabul and reimposed their strict version of Islamic law. Afghans who had worked with Western forces — as fixers, translators and in other roles — or who had served in the internationally backed Afghan army were at risk of retribution. Britain set up a program, known as the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, or ARAP, to bring some to the U.K. In February 2022, a defense official emailed a spreadsheet containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 ARAP applicants to someone outside the Ministry of Defense. The government says the individual thought they were sending a list of about 150 names, not the whole set. The British government only became aware of the leak when a portion of the data was posted on Facebook 18 months later by someone who threatened to publish the whole list. The government sought secrecy The leak sparked alarm among British officials who feared as many as 100,000 people were in danger when family numbers of the named individuals were added. The then-Conservative government sought a court order barring publication of the list. A judge granted a sweeping order known as a super injunction, which barred anyone from revealing not only information about the leak but the existence of the injunction itself. Super injunctions are relatively rare and their use is controversial. Most of the handful of cases in which they have come to light involved celebrities trying to prevent disclosures about their private lives. This is the first known case of a super injunction being granted to the government. Former Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said Wednesday that he sought the legal order to gain 'time and space to deal with this leak, find out whether the Taliban had it' and protect those at risk. Wallace said he asked for an ordinary injunction — not a super injunction — for a period of four months. The gag order remained in place for almost two years. A secret program sparked a legal battle The government began bringing to Britain the Afghans on the leaked list who were judged to be most at risk. To date, some 4,500 people — 900 applicants and approximately 3,600 family members — have been brought to Britain under the program. About 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the time it closes, at a cost of 850 million pounds ($1.1 billion). In all, about 36,000 Afghans have been resettled in the U.K. since 2021. Meanwhile, several news organizations had learned of the leaked list but were barred from publishing stories about it. They challenged the super injunction in court, and a judge ordered it lifted in May 2024 — but it remained in place after the government appealed. The government finally came clean Britain held an election in July 2024 that brought the center-left Labour Party to power. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Cabinet learned of the injunction soon after taking office and grappled with how to proceed. In January, the government ordered a review by a former senior civil servant. They found little evidence that the leaked data would expose Afghans to a greater risk of retribution from the Taliban. The review said the Taliban had other sources of information on those who had worked with the previous Afghan government and international forces and is more concerned with current threats to its authority. Given those findings, the government dropped its support for the super injunction. The injunction was lifted in court Tuesday, and minutes later Defense Secretary John Healey stood in the House of Commons to make the saga public for the first time. Many questions remain unanswered Healey said the secret settlement route was being closed, but acknowledged Wednesday that 'the story is just beginning,' and many questions remain unanswered. Immigration critics including Reform UK leader Nigel Farage are demanding to know what screening was done on the people who came under the secret program. Lawyers for Afghans on the leaked list want to know why the information was kept from them. Adnan Malik, head of data privacy at U.K. legal firm Barings Law, said he was assembling a class-action lawsuit by hundreds of former translators, soldiers and others. Lawmakers and free speech advocates say the use of a super injunction is deeply worrying. They ask how Parliament and the media can hold the government to account if there is such stringent secrecy. Judge Martin Chamberlain, who ruled that the injunction should be lifted, said Tuesday at the High Court that the super injunction 'had the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability.' Healey acknowledged that 'you cannot have democracy with super injunctions in place,' and said the government had acted as quickly and safely as it could. 'Accountability starts now,' he told the BBC.
