Starmer to host Merz in chancellor's first official visit to UK
Mr Merz is expected to commit to adopting the law change by the end of the year.
'Chancellor Merz's commitment to make necessary changes to German law to disrupt the supply lines of the dangerous vessels which carry illegal migrants across the Channel is hugely welcome,' Sir Keir said.
'As the closest of allies, we will continue to work closely together to deliver on the priorities that Brits and Germans share.'
The Prime Minister has been seeking to strengthen ties with EU countries, including to bring down small boat crossings, and last week secured a migrant return agreement with France.
The UK and Germany, two of the biggest providers of support to Ukraine, signed a defence pact last year with the aim of closer co-operation in the face of a growing threat from Russia.
During Mr Merz's visit, the leaders are expected to unveil an agreement to jointly produce defence exports such as Boxer armoured vehicles and Typhoon jets and commit to developing their deep precision strike missile in the next decade, with a range of more than 2,000 kilometres.
The chancellor and Sir Keir will also sign a bilateral friendship and cooperation treaty that includes plans to set up a new UK-Germany Business Forum.
Sir Keir said: 'The Treaty we will sign today, the first of its kind, will bring the UK and Germany closer than ever. It not only marks the progress we have already made and the history we share.
'It is the foundation on which we go further to tackle shared problems and invest in shared strengths.'
A series of commercial investments are being announced to coincide with the visit, worth more than £200 million and will create more than 600 new jobs.
These include defence tech company Stark setting up a production facility in Swindon, its first outside Germany, and conversational AI firm Cognigy investing £50 million and expanding its UK team from 13 to 150.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Why couldn't Britain have dealt with the EU like Trump?
The more you look at the trade deal negotiated between the US and the EU, the more you want to ask: why couldn't Britain have dealt with the EU like that? Why has every UK Prime Minister since Theresa May acted so feebly in the face of the EU's tactics and ended up getting such a poor deal out of the EU? Trump has get pretty much everything he wanted. Goods imported into the US from the EU will in future be subject to tariffs of 15 per cent – half the rate that Trump had threatened but far higher than existed prior to 'Liberation Day' on 2 April. What has Ursula von der Leyen got in return? Nothing at all, other than the punitive tariffs being dropped. She has agreed to lowering tariffs on imports from the EU, in some cases to zero. She has also agreed to the EU buying more products from the US, including liquified natural gas (LNG), making a mockery of the EU's net-zero policy. Like Britain, the EU has wound down its fossil fuel industry on the pretext that it is yesterday's energy and we won't need it for much longer as we transition to clean renewables – but then it commits itself to buying increased quantities of LNG from the US. Say what you like about Trump, but it is easy to argue that he has proven a far stronger defender of his country's interests than Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer. Britain is nearly as important a destination for EU exports as the US: in 2024, 21 per cent of its exports went to the US and 14 per cent to Britain. Yet no Prime Minister has properly used this leverage to give Britain any advantage. May got nowhere in the end but would have committed Britain to becoming a rule-taker from the EU. Johnson agreed to place an internal UK border down the Irish Sea. Sunak did a little better in trying to resolve this, but then Starmer has put us back closer to where May wanted to take us: agreeing to EU rules on plant and animal products while having no say in the making of those rules. Why did UK Brexit negotiators never threaten punitive tariffs on German cars and French wine? Instead – and in spite of Theresa May's mantra of 'no deal is better than a bad deal' – we acted as if no deal was never an option. Simultaneously, we treated Trump – whose first presidential term lasted throughout the Brexit negotiations – as a kind of oaf who was destroying America's reputation. Had our leaders emulated him rather than scorned him we would be in a lot better position now. It all starts to look a bit different, however, if you look at Trump's trade negotiations from the point of view of consumers rather than producers and ask instead: has Trump really scored such a victory? If you are an American motorist who fancies a new car, your choice has just narrowed, and many of the options available have just increased in price. It is not just consumers, either, who may feel this is not quite the victory for the US it might look like on the surface. Most manufacturers rely on international supply chains. While tariffs may help snuff out some of their competition, they will in future face higher prices of raw materials and components. This does not appear to feature all that much in Trump's mercantilist mind. To him – and not just him, because many world leaders seem to think the same – exporting stuff is a strength and importing stuff a weakness. When you think of things that way, the US has been cheated by the lopsided tariffs which have long existed between the US and the rest of the world. Yet the fact remains that the US has done extremely well out of its low import tariffs. Its economy has grown far faster than those of its more protectionist rivals. So yes, it is easy to admire Trump's negotiating tactics. The whirlwind of the past few months, with threats followed by negotiations and flattery, has been a wonder to watch. It is sad that UK leaders have lacked the courage to act in such a brazen fashion towards the EU. Yet that doesn't mean that the US will end up being the big winner from higher import tariffs. On the contrary, overall the US economy is likely to grow less strongly as a result.
Daily Mirror
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Transfer news LIVE: Arsenal chase Eze, Liverpool agree £65m deal, Man Utd striker latest
Arsenal completed two transfers last week, with Viktor Gyokeres and Cristhian Mosquera joining the club, but they are not ready to stop there. Attention has now turned to Ebererchi Eze, with a £60million deal for the Crystal Palace playmaker being prepared by the Gunners. They are not the only team who are busy right now. Liverpool have splashed the cash in the summer transfer window, with an initial £265m already spent after the arrival of Hugo Ekitike, and while Alexander Isak remains on the radar, their current focus is sales. Luis Diaz is heading to Bayern Munich after a £65.5m deal was agreed with the German giants and Darwin Nunez and Harvey Elliott could follow him out of the door. Manchester United are in the market for a striker, Manchester City are poised to announce the signing of Burnley's James Trafford and there are many more transfers in the pipeline. Follow Mirror Football's live blog to stay up to date with everything that's happening.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
EU-US tariffs: five key takeaways from the trade deal
Donald Trump has announced a deal with the EU imposing tariffs of 15% on most goods entering the US from Europe and requiring the bloc to make huge investments in US energy products, averting a trade war between the two of the world's largest economies. Though the 15% rate is half of what Trump had threatened, many will be disappointed by it. When the UK accepted tariffs of 10% in its trade deal with the US in May, it was widely reported that European leaders considered it to be a bad deal. Brussels also agreed to buy, over three years, $750bn (£560bn) worth of oil, gas, nuclear fuel and semi-conductors, including liquified gas, while at the same time agreeing to invest $600bn (£446bn) in the US, including purchases of military equipment, according to Trump. One analyst suggested the deal was a 'big win' for the US president while it was less clear what the EU gained. 'A 15% tariff on European goods, forced purchases of US energy and military equipment and zero tariff retaliation by Europe, that's not negotiation, that's art of the deal.,' Prashant Newnaha, senior Asia-Pacific rates strategist at TD securities said. Here are five key takeaways: The US will keep in place a 50% tariff on steel and aluminium according to Trump, although European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said the tariffs on steel could be replaced with a quota system with further negotiation. There was also confusion over pharmaceuticals after Trump said the sector would not be included, however a senior US official later confirmed that they were in fact covered by the 15% tariff. According to von der Leyen, zero tariffs will apply to a range of sectors including 'all aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generics, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, natural resources and critical raw materials'. But there was ongoing uncertainty for some industries – Sunday's announcement did not clear up what tariffs European wine and spirits producers will face in the US. Carsten Nickel, deputy director of research at Teneo, said Sunday's accord was 'merely a high-level, political agreement' that could not replace a carefully hammered out trade deal: 'This, in turn, creates the risk of different interpretations along the way, as seen immediately after the conclusion of the US-Japan deal.' On Sunday, a senior US administration official told reporters in Washington that Trump retained the ability to increase the tariffs in the future if European countries do not live up to the investment commitments contained in the deal. The deal creates a division on the island of Ireland, as traders in Northern Ireland can sell into the US on a 10% tariff rate, courtesy of the UK deal, while their neighbours in Ireland will be hit with the 15% rate. The disparity will make for difficult diplomatic conversations over guarantees to maintain stability on the entire island in the Good Friday agreement, which had already been rocked by the fallout from Brexit, when customs arrangements involving Northern Ireland became a huge headache for EU and UK negotiators. Ireland's deputy prime minister, Simon Harris, said he 'regretted' the 15% tariff rate but said 'certainty' was important. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector. German carmakers, VW, Mercedes and BMW were some of the hardest hit by the 27.5% US tariff on car and parts imports now in place. But the powerful BDI federation of industrial groups was vocal in its disappointment. 'Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry,' said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. The country's VCI chemical trade association said the accord left rates 'too high'. The impact of the tariffs is likely to be substantial on some companies; automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3bn euro ($1.5bn) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Though von der Leyen framed the agreement as a 'good deal' that would bring 'stability' and 'predictability', Brussels' original aim in the talks was for a 'zero-for-zero' tariff deal and tariffs remain far higher than historically. 'The crippling uncertainty is largely over, the deal is bearable for the EU,' said Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank. 'Trump can claim that the asymmetric deal is a 'win' for him. But of course, the outcome is still bad relative to the situation that prevailed before Trump started his trade wars.' US consumers are also likely to bear the costs of tariffs as companies pass on the expense in increased prices, many economists have warned. With agencies
