India-UK free trade deal: Modi and Starmer to sign 'landmark' agreement
Negotiations on the deal concluded in May and the pact is expected to boost bilateral trade by an additional £25.5bn a year by 2040. Last year, trade between the UK and India totalled £42.6bn.But it might take at least a year for the deal to come into effect after it is approved by the UK parliament. The deal was okayed by Indian cabinet earlier this week, news agency PTI reported on Tuesday.In May, Modi said the deal was a historic milestone that was "ambitious and mutually beneficial".The pact would help "catalyse trade, investment, growth, job creation, and innovation in both our economies", he said in a post on social media platform X.On Wednesday, Mr Starmer called the "landmark" deal a major win for Britain."It will create thousands of British jobs across the UK, unlock new opportunities for businesses and drive growth," he said.The deal will make it easier for UK firms to export whisky, cars and other products to India, and will cut taxes on India's clothing and footwear exports.Indian manufacturers are also expected to gain access to the UK market for electric and hybrid vehicles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
28 minutes ago
- Spectator
The state will do anything but fix the migrant crisis
Migrant hotel protests are erupting across the country, as 'tinderbox' Britain catches fire. What began with a series of protests in Epping, Essex, over the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by a recently arrived Ethiopian migrant, has now spread, as Brits air long-standing grievances about asylum seekers they have been forced to host in their own communities. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity Demonstrations have so far been reported in Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth, Norwich, Leeds and Wolverhampton, Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, Altrincham and even at Canary Wharf in London. With years of unaddressed anger rapidly making themselves felt, the police, pulled in all directions, are struggling to keep up. 'Local commanders are once again being forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps', admits the head of the Police Federation. Still, it seems there is one thing the government is more than happy to devote resources to: trawling the internet for anti-migrant sentiment. The Telegraph reports that an elite team of police officers convened by the Home Office is set to monitor social media to flag up early signs of unrest. Working out of the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) in Westminster the new National Internet Intelligence Investigations team will 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering in order to 'help local forces manage public safety threats and risks'. If this new division was just about intelligence-gathering that would be one thing. It's true that social media is in invaluable resource for following events on the ground at such gatherings, while local Facebook groups are often where grassroots protests are organised. Yet we know that when it comes to the British state and social media, censorship and punishment for online speech is never far behind. Ever since Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly linked the Southport unrest last year with social media, the idea has firmly taken root in Whitehall that the best way to stop unrest is to aggressively police the internet. Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, already takes this view, and the link has even been drawn in Department for Education guidance on how to talk to schoolchildren about the Southport disorder. In a recent report, the police inspectorate said that that forces must be 'better prepared and resourced to monitor, analyse, use and respond to online content', which it argues was a risk to public safety. This general zeal for social-media policing is why Big Brother Watch believes the new unit is very likely to infringe on free speech. The investigations team is 'Orwellian' and 'disturbing', says interim director Rebecca Vincent, creating the possibility that it 'will attempt to interfere with online content' as other government bodies are known to have done during Covid. As if there weren't enough threats to free speech already. This week age verification provisions in the latest stage of the Online Safety Act (OSA) kicked in, meaning that some footage of protests is now inaccessible on social media for many users. Not even parliamentary privilege is safe from the censorship regime. Katie Lam's searing April speech on the rape gangs, in which she quoted court transcripts and survivors, could not be watched on X without age verification. We are beginning to look like North Korea with rainbow flags: for the public's 'safety', footage exposing grievous failures of the British state now cannot be viewed in the UK. Little wonder, given the OSA explicitly earmarks content relating to 'child sexual abuse' and 'illegal immigration and people smuggling' as the 'kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from'. The Conservatives, who bequeathed us this blank cheque for digital authoritarianism, certainly need to take a long, hard look at themselves. The claims that the OSA is merely about restricting access to pornography has been exposed as a mere fig leaf. And still things could still get worse. As the Free Speech Union has noted, shortly after last year's riots, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship lobby group with ties to Morgan McSweeney, 'hosted a closed-door meeting under the Chatham House rule to discuss the role of social media in civil unrest'. In attendance were officials from the Home Office, the Department of Science, Information and Technology, Ofcom and other organisations. The CCDH proposals that emerged included amending the OSA to 'grant Ofcom additional 'emergency response' powers to fight 'misinformation' that poses a 'threat' to 'national security' and 'the health or safety of the public''. This would give Secretary of State Peter Kyle the ability to directly flag unapproved content to be taken down at a time of 'crisis'. Should the unrest continue this could well be coming down the track. What all this illustrates is just how ill-equipped the people in charge are to deal with Britain's problems, as The Spectator's Madeline Grant noted earlier this week. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity. Spin doctors 'manage' the news. Police surveil social media. The government shuffles asylum seekers from hotel to hotel, or to HMOs, or even to privately rented accommodation (which it uses your own taxes to outbid you for). For his part, the prime minister has been tweeting about the women's football. As the unrest grows, leading politicians continue doggedly insist that Britain remains a 'a successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith country'. In reality, there are answers to the asylum hotels crisis, it's just that the government simply lacks the will to act. Large numbers of illegal migrants need to be deported, while those that are here should be placed in a secure holding facility somewhere remote. What is surely obvious by now where they should not be: in hotels, in an Essex market town 500 yards from a school; on the Bournemouth beachfront; in the London's financial district; in a Leeds suburb right next to a shopping centre. As it is, however, it seems the regime will try anything and everything before addressing people's real concerns.
Scotsman
28 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Swinney: New work for bus maker Alexander Dennis being explored
The First Minister said details remain commercially sensitive Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The Scottish Government is actively exploring a package which could deliver new work to the troubled Alexander Dennis bus maker, John Swinney has said. The First Minister said he could not provide further details due to 'commercial sensitivity'. He has asked the company to consider an extension to its consultation period while the package is developed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad General view of the Alexander Dennis site at Camelon, near Falkirk | PA Last month, Alexander Dennis announced it was proposing to consolidate its UK operations at a single site in Scarborough, North Yorkshire. The decision puts 400 jobs at risk at its facility in Falkirk in another blow to the Forth Valley, which has already seen more than 400 jobs go at the Grangemouth refinery this year. Mr Swinney said: 'Scottish ministers place the utmost importance on the presence of Alexander Dennis in Scotland and the retention of its highly skilled manufacturing workers. 'The Scottish Government has committed to exploring any and all viable options throughout the consultation period to allow the firm to retain its skilled employees and manufacturing and production facilities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'While I cannot provide details due to commercial sensitivity at this time, I hope this update provides the workforce and local community with further assurance that the Scottish Government remains wholly committed to supporting the future of bus manufacturing in Scotland. 'We will undertake this work in tandem with every other short, medium and long-term opportunity we continue to explore in close collaboration with the company, Unite, GMB, Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland and the UK Government.' Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes will meet with the unions GMB and Unite today to update them on the proposal. Labour previously accused Holyrood ministers of overlooking Scottish industry in favour of ordering buses from China. Mr Swinney argued state aid regulations – in the form of the UK-wide Subsidy Control Act – prevent the Government from directly procuring from a single supplier like Alexander Dennis. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Speaking to The Scotsman last month, Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said: "They [the Scottish Government] have to look themselves in the mirror. But they should be leaving no stone unturned about how we can keep this bus company open."
New Statesman
28 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Will Keir Starmer recognise Palestine?
Photo byThe image stays with you: this week it has covered the front pages of the world's newspapers. A mother, herself worn down and bruised by 21 months of conflict, cradles her child, who is swaddled in a bin bag. The child has lost a third of its body weight, it now weighs 6kg. Such images are not unique in Gaza, where starvation is general to a community after the blockade of humanitarian aid. The international community is looking on in horror, pleading with Israel to reconsider. On Sunday, the Israeli government issued a temporary reprieve allowing deliveries of aid into parts of Gaza. In the UK, there is pressure on the government to officially recognise the state of Palestine. This pressure originally mounted from the backbenches, but now, even members of the cabinet (Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Hilary Benn) are ramping up their private calls for Starmer to recognise Palestinian statehood. Over the weekend, 220 MPs from nine political parties – including 131 Labour MPs – signed a letter calling for the immediate recognition of Palestine. In the run up to the 2024 general election, the party's manifesto included a pledge to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution towards a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution, but a year on, and both Starmer and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, are yet to make good on this promise. The government's current position is that the UK will acknowledge Palestinian statehood as part of a peace process, but only at the point of 'maximum impact'. On Saturday, Starmer doubled down, rejecting renewed calls for the UK to reconsider and immediately recognise a Palestinian state, reasserting the UK's alignment with the US on this issue (a move which one cabinet minister told The Times was 'deeply inadequate'). The opportunity for Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state has presented itself more than once. Most recently, it was thought that Starmer might wait to go ahead with recognition alongside the French President, Emmanuel Macron. The UK and France argue a historical responsibility for the continuation of a Palestinian community in the Middle East, and so plenty suspected the countries would make a dual statement. But the opportunity for joint Franco-UK recognition has now passed. On Thursday 24 July, Macron announced France's intention to recognise Palestine at the upcoming UN general assembly. (Starmer, on the other hand, almost simultaneously released a statement sticking to the government line). Backbench MPs are losing their patience. Rachael Maskell, who lost the Labour whip last week following her involvement in the welfare rebellion, believes 'time is running out' for any governmental recognition of Palestine to have its desired effect. 'We should have recognised Palestine many, many years ago,' she said, 'it's been Labour party policy since 2014'. Maskell was one of 60 MPs to sign a letter to the Foreign Secretary in July calling for Palestine's immediate recognition. Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby agreed: 'We had a vote over a decade ago about Palestine. [Recognition] was in the manifesto. What we're seeing now with the genocide, there's the political will now from all sides of the house to do something.' Byrne said now is the time for the UK to step up and take international responsibility. 'The UK has the opportunity to do the right thing. We are one of the world leaders and sometimes you need a leader to take the lead.' He criticised the government for acting 'extremely slowly' on Gaza. Even more moderate back-bench Labour MPs are ramping up the pressure on the government. One member of the 2024 intake told me, 'It's beyond horrific, we have to seriously consider our relationship with Israel.' Israel has now offered a brief cessation of its full scale aid blockade, and Lammy has said the channelling of aid into the Gaza strip must be 'urgently accelerated'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe No country is likely to get involved in this conflict militarily (unless a UN peacekeeping force is assembled), instead, more substantial diplomatic levers could be pulled such as suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement and imposing sanctions not only on the most outspoken ministers (as the UK has already done with Smotrich and Ben Gvir) but all Israeli political and military leaders involved in the conflict. Many Labour MPs would agree with this. Byrne called for an 'arms embargo, military cooperation to be ended, and comprehensive sanctions'. And it is not just Labour. Kit Malthouse, the Conservative MP for North West Hertfordshire said Lammy could end up in the Hague over his inaction on Gaza as he called on the government to press for an immediate ceasefire. This week the Daily Express carried a front page bearing the face of an emaciated Palestinian child crying 'enough is enough': concern over the plight of Palestinians now transcends party politics. This is unlikely to be an electoral downfall for Keir Starmer. But, with the pro-Gaza independent MPs taking seats last summer otherwise ordained for Labour, it is obvious that this is damaging to the party on its left flank. The Prime Minister may continue to prevaricate. But were we at the polls tomorrow, votes would be shed because of it. [See more: The abomination of Obama's nation] Related
