.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
US-UK trade deal: Ask chief political commentator John Rentoul anything after historic Trump agreement
Welcome to an exclusive Ask Me Anything session with me, John Rentoul, The Independent 's chief political commentator.
Keep scrolling for more. If you want to jump straight to the Q&A, click here.
In one of the most dramatic weeks for British trade policy in decades, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has secured not one, but two landmark trade agreements — first with India, and now with the United States.
The newly announced US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal (EPD), unveiled on Thursday, marks a significant step in re-cementing Britain's trading ties with Washington.
Billed as a "first-of-its-kind" agreement, the deal pledges to lower tariffs, ease barriers for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic, and deepen collaboration in key sectors from digital trade to pharmaceuticals, steel, and green technology.
Crucially, it promises to safeguard UK businesses from the sharpest edges of Donald Trump's protectionist trade policies, while opening up billions in new commercial opportunities.
It's a striking diplomatic win for Starmer, who just days ago concluded the long-stalled trade deal with India, an achievement that eluded both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.
The two deals, clinched within 48 hours, have reshaped Britain's post-Brexit trade landscape and breathed new life into Labour's economic strategy.
Yet questions remain: How deep does the US-UK deal really go? What will it mean for British consumers and businesses? Is it enough to offset the frictions of post-Brexit trade with Europe? And how did Starmer navigate the famously unpredictable Donald Trump to secure it?
Join me live at 3pm BST on Friday, 9 May, as I answer your questions on all aspects of the new trade deal, Starmer's diplomacy, and what these agreements mean for Britain's economic future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK and India discuss 'counter-terrorism' cooperation after Pakistan ceasefire
NEW DELHI, June 7 (Reuters) - Britain and India on Saturday discussed expanding their "counter-terrorism" collaboration following recent fighting between India and Pakistan, Britain's foreign minister told Reuters after meeting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. British foreign minister David Lammy is the highest-profile Western official to have visited both New Delhi and Islamabad since the South Asian neighbours agreed to a ceasefire last month after their worst fighting in nearly three decades. The latest tensions began in April after the killing of 26 men in Indian Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on "terrorists" backed by Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denied. India then attacked what it called "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan, leading to escalation from both sides until a May 10 ceasefire. "We want the situation to be maintained, but of course we recognise fragility, particularly in the backdrop of terrorism, terrorism designed to destabilise India," Lammy said in an interview at the residence of the British High Commissioner in New Delhi. "We are keen to continue to work with our Indian partners on counter-terrorism measures." He said he discussed the next steps with both Modi and Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, but gave no specifics. Last year, India and Britain discussed, opens new tab combating the financing of terrorism, cooperation between law enforcement and judicial bodies and information sharing. Lammy said he also discussed boosting trade between the world's fifth and sixth largest economies. The countries concluded talks for a free trade deal early last month. "I know that Prime Minister Keir Starmer is very much looking forward to coming to India very soon to sign the free trade agreement," Lammy said. "There is so much that our two nations can continue to do together."
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet during Theo Von interview
Vice President JD Vance's first reaction to Elon Musk 's Trump-Epstein tweet was caught Thursday on Theo Von's podcast. On the 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' episode released Saturday, Von showed Vance one of the most viral tweets from the pair's feud, in which the Tesla CEO claimed, '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' 'Ok, wow. I haven't even seen this one,' Vance said, explaining he was on a plane amid Musk and Trump 's online exchanges. 'First of all, absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein,' Vance said. 'Whatever the Democrats and the media says about him, that's totally BS.' The social media exchange came just a week after Musk left his DOGE role in the Trump Administration. Vance chalked Musk's online outbursts up to him 'being new to politics' and frustrations that his 'businesses are being attacked non-stop' since he joined the White House. Musk's departure followed a Wall Street Journal report citing insiders who claimed that even Trump was getting frustrated with Musk and was doubtful whether his goals within DOGE could be reached. Musk has since spoken out about his disapproval of the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes various policy changes, including tax cuts, welfare reform, and infrastructure investments. 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance told Von on the podcast. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Vance added, 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so.' Despite Musk going 'so nuclear' online, Vance is hopeful that he can 'come back into the fold' within politics. 'I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon,' Vance said. 'But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.'
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Britain must not recognise Palestine
The West Bank was never taken from the Palestinians. When Israel conquered the territory in 1967 it was from the Jordanians, who had occupied it since 1948 before trying their luck at a genocide of the Jews. Regardless, if Jerusalem gave up the land in return for peace, it would make Israel just nine miles wide at its centre. Known as the 'Hadera-Gadera rectangle', that narrow waist holds half the population and much of the country's vital infrastructure, including Tel Aviv. A new Palestinian state would lie just over the border. After October 7, would you do it? The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is famously incompetent, and is currently enjoying the 20th year of the four-year term to which he was elected in 2005. He presides over a system of corruption and brutality; he holds a PhD in Holocaust revisionism from a Moscow university; and he offers cash incentives to those convicted of terror offences, with higher payments awarded for more serious crimes. Fancy the odds? When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it was in the naive belief that, from then on, even a single rocket from the Strip would meet with international condemnation, since the settlements and 'occupation' were no more. So that worked out well. A two-state solution would see the same policy applied on the West Bank. What could possibly go wrong? Sir Keir Starmer presumably thinks it's a great idea, because in nine days' time, Britain will join France and the Saudis in New York in talks about recognising a state of Palestine. Far easier to gamble with the lives of someone else's children than your own, I suppose. This would form the natural culmination of Britain's escalating hostility towards our ally, as it battles to defeat the jihadi group that carried out that orgy of butchery, mutilation and rape two years ago and has vowed to do the same again. Hostages are still in the catacombs. Yet Sir Keir dreams of a state of Palestine. War is hell. Israel – which neither wanted it nor started it – evacuates civilians before attacks and provides them with aid. Yet in Parliament last week, amid nods from MPs who have never known the inside of a bomb shelter, the Prime Minister branded Israel 'appalling'. As ever, Starmer's petty politicking blinds him to his own moral bankruptcy. Unilaterally recognising a state of Palestine is a contemptuous proposal. Dismissing Israel's existential security concerns is insult enough, but providing a reward for October 7 creates awful incentives for the future. Worse still, perhaps, is the narrative it would create. Britain's official policy would be to blame Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state, when the historical truth is the opposite. The Palestinians were first offered self-determination in 1947, but rejected it in favour of attempted genocide. They were offered it again during the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, but derailed it with a spate of suicide bombs that claimed the lives of many Israelis. In 2000, at Camp David, they were offered 96 per cent of the West Bank but turned it down. In 2008, prime minister Ehud Olmert offered 94 per cent of the territory with land swaps for the remainder, East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, and the Old City turned over to international control. Again, Abbas rejected it. Why? Because the true problem is the very existence of a Jewish country, which is seen as a rebuke by some to Arab honour. The Palestinians don't want a state alongside Israel. They want a state instead of it. This is what Britain would be supporting.
