Trump and Starmer agree to begin work on new US-UK trade deal
Donald Trump and Sir Keir Starmer agreed to begin work on a new US-UK trade deal after the Prime Minister dangled the carrot of an unprecedented second state visit to woo the US president.
After a dramatic day at the White House, Sir Keir said the two leaders had decided 'to begin work on a new economic deal with advanced technology at its core'.
The president, who is set to impose a 25% import tax on UK steel in March, said if there was a trade deal 'we could very well end up with a real trade deal where the tariffs wouldn't be necessary'.
Before talks between the two sides, the Prime Minister presented the royal-loving US president with a letter from the King inviting him for a historic second state visit.
The letter, marked 'private and confidential', invited him to the UK, with talks ahead of the formal state visit to discuss logistics and a potential programme.
The letter, signed by Charles, said that 'this is unprecedented by a US President'.
'That is why I would find it helpful for us to be able to discuss, together, a range of options for location and programme content,' it added.
Sir Keir described the letter as 'really special' and said the move 'symbolises the strength of the relationship between us'.
Before the White House talks, the transatlantic relationship appeared to have come under strain in recent weeks following Mr Trump's interventions on Ukraine – including calling its president Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator – and the threats of tariffs.
But instead the US president:
– Praised Sir Keir as a 'tough negotiator', saying he had tried to talk him out of tariffs and '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'.
– Suggested Sir Keir's plans to give up sovereignty over the Chagos Islands and lease back the UK-US Diego Garcia base would 'work out well'.
– Pledged to 'always be with the British' if they deployed peacekeepers in Ukraine, although he stopped short of confirming the US security 'backstop' called for by Sir Keir.
At a closing press conference following their talks, Sir Keir set out the plans for a 'new economic deal', especially on technology.
'Instead of over-regulating these new technologies, we're seizing the opportunities that they offer,' he said.
'Our two nations together shaped the great technological innovations of the last century. We have a chance now to do the same for the 21st century.
'I mean, artificial intelligence could cure cancer. That could be a moonshot for our age, and that's how we'll keep delivering for our people.'
Mr Trump has said he will 'have to take a look' at whether there will be any trade sanctions on the UK.
Mr Trump said: 'I can say that … we're here for a different reason – we're talking about a very different place.
'I have investments there, I own Turnberry, I own Aberdeen, and I own a great place called Doonbeg in Ireland.
'So, I have a great warm spot for your country.'
Sir Keir said: 'Our trade, obviously, is fair and balanced and, in fact, you've got a bit of surplus'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
17 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
17 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
30 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.
