Reason Donald Trump will NOT address Parliament on state visit to the UK unlike Macron revealed
The Sun understands the US President's trip has been timed for when the Commons takes a recess break in mid-September.
Sir Keir Starmer had been facing a potential headache with backbench Labour MPs threatening to boycott any potential address by Mr Trump.
An empty Parliament would've been a huge embarrassment to the commander-in-chief and a huge blow to the PM's carefully choreographed relationship with the US.
Now Sir Keir has avoided an embarrassing whinge from Labour MPs in the face of an address.
Mr Trump is set to touch down in two months for a historic second state visit.
But unlike traditional itineraries he is not expected to visit Buckingham Palace or take a ceremonial carriage ride down the Mall in London.
A lack of Parliament address will separate Mr Trump from predecessors including Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
How Houthis have mounted terrifying return to scourge Red Sea again months after Trump said they 'don't want to fight'
1
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump Ukraine plans prompts Pentagon peace summit with UK military chiefs
The Pentagon meeting, attended by Britain's top military chiefs, came amid deep unease in European capitals over the US president's changing stance about committing US resources British military chiefs are gathering at the Pentagon tonight to discuss exactly what role America is prepared to play in ensuring Ukraine's future security. The meeting, along with other European generals, comes amid deep unease in European capitals over Donald Trump's changing stance about committing US resources. Security minister Dan Jarvis yesterday said the talks about ending the war in Ukraine marked a "pivotal moment". "We are closer to peace than we've been at any point previously,' he said. 'And the UK Government - the Prime Minister has been clear about this - will want to play our full part in terms of ensuring that we secure that peace." Asked whether he is uncomfortable about "kowtowing" to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Jarvis said he would describe it as "diplomacy" and "the best strategy to try and get a peace settlement". The minister added: "I think in situations such as this, you've got to be pragmatic. "The loss of life in Ukraine is horrific. "This is a conflict that has gone on for far too long. It needs to be brought to an end." Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, led the UK delegation at the Pentagon in Washington DC. He is understood to have told his American counterparts the UK is prepared to send troops to defend Ukraine's skies and seas but not to the frontline with Russia, as planning intensifies for a postwar settlement. Radakin joined senior counterparts from Germany, France, Finland and Italy in what officials described as a meeting of the 'coalition of the willing.' According to a senior UK official, last night's formal Pentagon session focused on 'security guarantees and peace deal monitoring. " The discussions were held behind closed doors, but were closely watched for any indication of what Washington is willing to put on the table. Trump has already drawn a firm line. On Monday, as Ukrainian leader Volodmyr Zelensky arrived at the White House, he initially said US troops could play a role, but he later stated it would not happen. His stance, while not unexpected, raises pressing questions about whether the US is prepared to provide other forms of support, ranging from intelligence sharing to air defence and the use of US bases in Europe. At the heart of the talks lies the single issue of whether Trump is willing to offer Ukraine what his adviser Steve Witkoff this week described as 'Article-5-like' assurance. It echoes NATO's principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. For Ukraine, currently outside the Alliance, such pledges would be unprecedented. For Moscow, they would be viewed as a direct escalation. Ahead of last night's meeting, one Western diplomat said the 'vagueness' of Trump's language had fuelled confusion and anxiety. "European leaders need to know whether this is political theatre or an actual commitment,' they said. 'The difference could shape the entire outcome of the war.' There are also questions over whether coalition forces could rely on US military infrastructure in Europe to support operations. Bases in Germany, Italy and the UK remain critical hubs for NATO, but their use under a purely European-led mission would require White House consent. Another item on the agenda was intelligence sharing. Ukraine's battlefield successes have been heavily reliant on US surveillance and satellite imagery. Any scaling back could benefit Russia, while enhanced guarantees would signal long-term American engagement. Perhaps the most contentious proposal, said to be raised privately by some European chiefs, is whether to consider a no-fly zone in parts of Ukraine. While seen as highly unlikely under Trump, the fact that it remains on the list underscores European concern about Moscow's continued aerial bombardment. The Pentagon talks are not expected to yield immediate announcements. Officials stressed that discussions will continue in the coming weeks. Yet Putin cannot ignore the symbolism of five of Europe's top generals flying to Washington to hear Trump's position firsthand. One defence analyst said: 'This is the moment Europe finds out whether Trump is prepared to lead, or whether he expects the rest of NATO to shoulder the burden alone.'
Daily Mirror
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Suranne Jones details 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for thriller role
Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller and detailed one fiery moment in particular Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller. The former Coronation Street actress, 46, is now starring as fictional Prime Minister Abigail Dalton in Hostage, and follows the events that unfold after her character attends a summit with the French president Vivienne Toussaint (Julie Delpy) and her husband is kidnapped. As part of her research for the role, Suranne took a trip to Downing Street and ventured into the House of Commons, where she managed to catch a heated moment with the real-life Prime Minister. Speaking on Wednesday's edition of This Morning, she told hosts Sian Welby and Craig Doyle: "I did go to the House of Commons. It was great because when we then built our set, I'd been in the actual place. We did see Keir Starmer having a...[debate] it was quite rambunctious." The actress noted her disbelief at watching it all take place in front of her as she added: "There was a lot of shouting in there. You don't believe it til you see it!" The UK has only seen two female Prime Ministers in its time, with the late Margaret Thatcher having served a leader of the Conservative party from 1979 until 1990. In October 2022, Liz Truss became the shortest-serving Prime Minister in the country's history having managed to survive just 50 days in office. Suranne noted the lack of females in such a role of power but approached the role with a 'fresh' perspective, which she believes was necessary when taking into account the current political climate. She said: "We haven't got a lot of women to look at, have we? But that's another great thing. What I did and women in power, I wanted Abigail to be a fresh set of eyes, and the political landscape as it is, we needed that as it is." However, Suranne, who has carved out a stellar career in drama since leaving her role as Karen McDonald on ITV's flagship soap more than two decades ago, recently admitted she wouldn't want to take on the top job at number 10 in real life, mainly because of the amount of 'baggage' her new alter-ego has to carry round. She said: "A woman, before she's even put on her very high, hurty shoes, she has a lot of baggage and a lot of things that she is carrying: the way she looks, the way she dresses, the way she's been educated. "All of those things. How she behaves with her family or her background, everything, before she starts to go out into the world and getting judged for it. "Obviously, I'm well known. People recognise me. I try to keep a private element to my life, but then I do want to show support of the charities I work for and all of that stuff, and the community theatre that I like to give elevation to, so I drew on a lot of that stuff. But I wouldn't want to be a prime minister." She continued: "The early name for the show was The Choice and I think that's the thing, the choice of wanting a job like that, the choice of your family or your country. "It blows my mind, I can't even imagine... obviously, I had to because I play the prime minister, so I did have to imagine. But these big, big choices, they're huge and so it's just making people think." The five-part political thriller witnesses Dalton being blackmailed following her husband's kidnapping whilst he's working overseas, with the captors threatening his murder unless she steps down from office.
Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Spectator
Closing hotels won't stop the migrant crisis
After yesterday's landmark decision on the Bell Hotel in Epping, the next question must be: where do we go from here? What is essential to understand is that yesterday's High Court judgement was what might be called an 'Al Capone reckoning'. One ultimate actor, the state, and by extension the government, has been humbled on a mere technicality. The Essex hotel was deemed in breach of contract for using its rooms to accommodate refugees, rather than paying guests. The state was not brought to heel on its ethically unsound and socially corrosive laws on immigration and re-settlement. That the Home Office sought to block Epping Forest council's application for an injunction is important. Campaigners and the public will still face an elite establishment – especially, despite yesterday's judgement, a judiciary – that has an intransigent and indulgent attitude to migrants, and a slavish, literal-minded adherence to human rights laws. The fundamentals of the migrant crisis, then, have not been resolved by the closure of the Bell Hotel. They will not be resolved by the closure of other hotels, either. Illegal migrants will still come to Britain, and they will still be housed. This crisis will end in the same way it was always going to: with changes in policy and attitudes. We have already witnessed the effectiveness of one stern response. That was the Rwanda scheme. Although the plan for its establishment was fraught with difficulties, when it did briefly come into law last April many illegal immigrants responded by taking flight to the Republic of Ireland, as complaints by the Dublin government at the time attested. This principle of deterrence must be re-visited. Keir Starmer's plan to 'smash the gangs' has not worked. A government that really wanted to stop illegal migration would consider more stringent measures, such as automatic deportation of illegal immigrants or those with criminal convictions languishing in our prisons. These policies would prove popular, but Starmer isn't going to enact them. One might imagine that only a Reform government would. The ultimate 'uncompassionate' policy is the unsayable one: stop picking up migrants from their boats in the first place. Return them to France, with or without the French government's cooperation. This would most likely contravene maritime law and cause legal challenges and a diplomatic fallout with our neighbours. Lurking behind so many of these preventative measures are not legal or political obstacles, but rather intangible ones, those which can't be revoked or reversed by diktat, legislation, court ruling or vote. In order for matters to change for good, attitudes need to change and lazy assumptions need to be dismantled. The first is the one parroted by those with no imagination, no will or just no wish: this is that there is 'no solution' to this fundamentally global problem. There is, as outlined above. It just takes determination and the willingness to risk the opprobrium of bien-pensants. Passive and defeatist mantras should have no place anywhere in political discourse. The second is to confront the idle axiom that British people today increasingly hate foreigners. This is mostly untrue. Rather, many are angry at the increasing number of immigrants and their decreasing quality. If there is ire directed against one group of people, it is the liberal elite and those who have favoured cheap labour in their factories and homes. It is imperative that the thought-terminating accusation of 'xenophobia' is ignored or rebutted. A third shibboleth contains other weedy platitudes: that migrants who force their way onto our shores are 'fleeing persecution' and 'are only seeking a better life'. That first bromide is refutable. Those who come by boat are arriving from France, a democracy where no-one is persecuted by the state for their beliefs or ethnicity. The second statement represents a worrying detachment from reality. Of course illegal immigrants are seeking a better life. We all want a better life. The ultimate mindset which demands the most patience and perseverance in overturning is the embedded belief and unspoken truism that 'compassion' is inherently good. Sometimes it manifestly isn't. Sometimes, voicing compassionate sentiment only improves the feeling of well-being among those who voice it. Immigration policies based on compassion have so far only served to increase feelings of resentment and anger among the native population. Yesterday's judgement about the Bell Hotel matters, but real change will only come when we upend the conceit that compassionate beliefs or saying nice things necessarily correlate with or result in positive outcomes. Only an unfashionable attitude and 'uncaring' policies will solve the migrant crisis.
