Donald Trump opens door to US-UK 'real trade deal' in meeting with Starmer
Donald Trump has opened the door to a possible US-UK trade deal without tariffs after a meeting with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
As part of a European charm offensive launched to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine, following on from Emmanuel Macron's own trip on Monday, Sir Keir met the US president at the White House yesterday.
It comes ahead of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's own visit to Washington today.
14:15
During the meeting and a subsequent news conference, the two world leaders exchanged warm words - Mr Trump described Sir Keir as a "special man" and a "great gentleman", while the British PM praised the US leader for "changing the conversation" on Ukraine.
'Tough negotiator'
The Republican president has slapped tariffs on a number of countries in the early weeks of his first term, including using them to pressure allies into action.
But he hinted the UK could avoid that fate.
Mr Trump said he thought the UK and US could end up with a "real trade deal" without tariffs and called Sir Keir a "tough negotiator" who had tried to persuade him not to impose trade tariffs on the UK.
"He was working hard, I'll tell you that," the president added.
"He earned whatever the hell they pay him over there, but he tried.
"I think there's a very good chance that in the case of these two great, friendly countries, I think we could very well end up with a real trade deal where the tariffs wouldn't be necessary. We'll see."
Trump's 'great warm spot'
The surprisingly positive meeting followed recent weeks in which it appeared the transatlantic relationship had come under strain, following Mr Trump's intervention to try to bring about the end of the war in Ukraine.
Mr Trump spoke about the UK, saying: "I have investments there, I own Turnberry, I own Aberdeen, and I own a great place called Doonbeg in Ireland [Ireland isn't in the UK].
"So, I have a great warm spot for your country."
Ukraine, Chagos and a royal invite
The key reason for the visit was to try to bring about a sustainable peace in Ukraine.
Mr Starmer followed Mr Macron into the Oval Office in an effort to win over Mr Trump after his administration held unilateral talks with Russia last week, without Ukraine, in a move that set off sirens throughout Europe's capitals.
However, Mr Trump offered no security guarantees during the meeting with Sir Keir and the two leaders struck different tones.
While Mr Trump said "if it [a peace deal] doesn't happen quickly, it may not happen at all", Sir Keir said "history must be on the side of the peacemaker, not the invader."
2:28
The actions of Sir Keir and Mr Macron reflected a continent jolted into action.
Sir Keir recently announced a historic hike to defence spending as well - something Mr Trump has previously called for.
Mr Zelenskyy is making the same trip to the US where he will sit down and thrash out a possible deal on critical minerals in Ukraine.
The economic deal has proven a crucial precursor of any potential peace agreement.
Mr Trump has said it would see American workers in Ukraine - something that would act as an effective backstop to any peacekeeping forces there, he claimed.
On the Chagos Islands deal, over which some have criticised Mr Starmer, Mr Trump said the plan to give up sovereignty and lease back the US-UK base would "work out well".
Before talks between the two sides, Sir Keir produced, with a flourish, a letter from the King written to Mr Trump, inviting him for an "unprecedented" second state visit.
The letter, marked "private and confidential", invited the royal-loving president to the UK, with talks ahead of the formal state visit to discuss logistics and a potential programme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
16 minutes ago
- Spectator
The post-Brexit Gibraltar deal is going down badly in Spain
Conservative and Reform politicians have denounced this week's post-Brexit Gibraltar deal as a betrayal. 'Gibraltar is British, and given Labour's record of surrendering our territory and paying for the privilege, we will be reviewing carefully all the details of any agreement that is reached,' Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said. Meanwhile, describing Labour as 'the worst negotiators in history', Nigel Farage called the agreement 'yet another surrender'. But Spain's right-wing parties have, if possible, been even more damning. José Manuel García-Margallo, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, described the agreement as 'total surrender', the 'absolute renunciation' of Spain's political and economic sovereignty over the Rock. 'All the British companies that want to settle in the EU post-Brexit will now go to Gibraltar,' he predicted, asking rhetorically who will now invest in Spain's neighbouring territory. He dismissed the argument that the pact helps the approximately 15,000 people living in Spain who work in Gibraltar, insisting that Spain, 'the fourth largest economy in the euro should be able to provide a solution for that number of people'.
Spectator
16 minutes ago
- Spectator
Can Starmer be trusted not to give away the Falkland Islands?
No sooner had the Chagos deal been struck than attention turned to the Falklands. Would Keir Starmer support the Islands as steadfastly as his predecessors? Would he seek some sort of grubby compromise with Argentina? Can we trust him with British overseas interests? As the Islands celebrate their liberation day today, marking 43 years since the end of Argentina's military occupation during the Falklands War, these questions seem particularly poignant. Many asking those questions, however, care not a jot for the people of the Falklands and are still less inclined to bother asking them what they actually think. And that's a shame, because if they did, they might be surprised by what they'd discover. There's no doubt that the hoopla surrounding Chagos has had a major impact on the inhabitants of the Falklands. That's not because they fear that Starmer and Lammy are about to hand away sovereignty.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Dominic Cummings may have just blown the grooming gangs scandal wide open
All progressives solemnly honour LGBTQIA+ Pride Month. And Islamophobia Awareness Month. And Black History Month. Plus many other such events. This is because they're passionately committed to 'raising awareness' of social injustice. So why not the grooming gangs scandal? For some reason, this is one example of social injustice which has failed to grip progressives' attention. To rectify this, I suggest we introduce Grooming Gangs Awareness Month. Fly an official Grooming Gangs Scandal flag from all public buildings. Get civil servants to wear Grooming Gangs Scandal lanyards. Then perhaps these people might finally take an interest. Then again, we may be wasting our time. In all likelihood, progressives have never lacked 'awareness' of the grooming gangs. They just didn't want anyone else to be aware of them. Which brings me to the explosive allegations made on Thursday by Dominic Cummings. In an interview with GB News, he claimed that, when he was working at the Department for Education in the early 2010s, there were 'mass cover-ups of the whole thing in Whitehall'. Are Mr Cummings's allegations true? I don't know. But then, that's why we need the full national inquiry that Labour continues to deny us. A handful of mere 'local inquiries' won't do – not least because it wouldn't be within their scope to investigate Mr Cummings's claims about what went on in Whitehall. Yesterday, incidentally, seven members of yet another grooming gang were found guilty of raping two teenage girls in Rochdale. Labour may not like Mr Cummings. But this time I think it should listen to him. And, for that matter, to the increasingly furious public. Talking Bull Personally, I was somewhat taken aback when, on Tuesday, the new chairman of Nigel Farage's Reform UK told voters that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country, and it always has been'. I was even more surprised when, on Wednesday, he told Richard Madeley on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he was once strangled by an evil spirit masquerading as the ghost of his late grandmother. To my mind, though, Dr David Bull's most intriguing comment of the week was this. Asked whether he supports calls to ban the burqa in this country, he replied: 'I'm very anxious about the rise in people that think it is OK to hide their faces. We had a conversation yesterday about whether that was the burqa, crash helmets, scarves or whatever.' Hang on. Crash helmets? I for one have always admired Reform's bracingly no-nonsense attitude towards health-and-safety-gone-mad. But a ban on crash helmets, I feel, might be taking it a touch too far. In any case, I'm not convinced that there's a huge public clamour for such a ban. There are plenty of people who want to ban the burqa, and they have strong arguments for doing so. But I've never heard a voter say: 'I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing all these women walking around the streets in crash helmets. It's not as if it's their choice, either. Their husbands force them to do it. The crash helmet is a disgusting symbol of misogyny and patriarchal oppression. 'Also, crash helmets make normal human interaction impossible. When a motorcyclist zooms past me at 70mph, I expect to be able to see his face. 'Anyway, it's just not British. If motorcyclists want to wear crash helmets, they can go and do it in their own country.' Remarks like those, I would guess, aren't heard all that often in focus groups. So why Dr Bull raised the idea, entirely unprompted, in reply to a question about banning the burqa, I don't know. Still, I'm not complaining. Far from it. When I stepped down as this newspaper's parliamentary sketch writer in 2021, after 10 years, I felt that politics was in danger of becoming dull. The previous decade had teemed with the most glorious eccentrics, on Left and Right alike. Increasingly, however, they seemed to be fading from view, to be replaced by robotic regiments of Starmers and Sunaks. How wonderful it is to see a new generation coming through. Violence: a Left-wing guide I don't know whether you ever read Left-wing news outlets. But if you do, this week you'll probably have noticed something peculiar. In such outlets, the violence in Ballymena is always described as 'rioting' – yet the violence in LA is always described as 'protests'. You may well have wondered why this is. After all, both Ballymena and LA have seen cars set on fire, missiles thrown, and police officers injured. These are all very bad things. So why don't Left-wing news outlets refer to both as 'rioting'? The answer is simple. The violence in Ballymena is being perpetrated by people who are against mass immigration. The violence in LA, in contrast, is being perpetrated by people who are in favour not only of mass immigration, but of 'irregular' (i.e., illegal) immigration. And, just as importantly, they hate Donald Trump. Therefore, their actions must be made to sound understandable and legitimate. In other words: sometimes setting people's cars on fire is nasty and frightening. And sometimes it's noble and compassionate. Please update your records accordingly.
