why if they are competing against EU countries amongst others with higher tariffs it will make them far more competitiveWhat ?????
10% can, and is likely to do, a lot of damage to a lot of our exporters
why if they are competing against EU countries amongst others with higher tariffs it will make them far more competitiveWhat ?????
10% can, and is likely to do, a lot of damage to a lot of our exporters
You have no say in how many whippings you are going to get so if the choice was between 10 or 20, which one would you be happier to receive?Being whipped 10 times is better than being whipped 20 times.
Unfortunately, that option is not availible.But not being whipped at all is much better.
Can't you? Compared to 20%, I can.I really can't see how you can claim a punishment of 10% as a bonus.
That was the perception before Putins invasion of Ukraine.. The power of the EU is much stronger than that of the little old UK on its own.
You really do make the most silly posts.That was the perception before Putins invasion of Ukraine.
The EU was on the verge of a trade war with the UK until Putin arrived, their belligerent attitude soon changed when they realised that they needed the UK to deter Putin.
I think it's only on goods, not services.I'm still trying to work out how the UK qualifies for a 10% tariff when there's a 12bn trade surplus. Nothing makes sense about any of this, unless you count American fears for a stronger EU trading with China, then it all becomes a little clearer.
So there's a deficit on goods, then why include services in the full total?I think it's only on goods, not services.
Because the people who out the list together are idiots who didn't think about it for more than 15 minutes.So there's a deficit on goods, then why include services in the full total?
It's indicative of the way he thinks things through, though, with no understanding of how the real world works beyind a balance sheet.Because the people who out the list together are idiots who didn't think about it for more than 15 minutes.
As demonstrated by including the islands only inhabited by Penguin on the list
In absolutist terms I agree that we don't pay the tariffs directly. But indirectly we do if we want to maintain sales by having to lower prices.I was refuting a claim that we pay out more when tariffs go up. We don't.
Tariffs may hit sales, or not. Not really the point.
I doubt thats going to happen very quickly, Trump has made the market unstable so businesses arent going to make rash decisionsIn absolutist terms I agree that we don't pay the tariffs directly. But indirectly we do if we want to maintain sales by having to lower prices.

Not if the American public pay the increase, the importers take a cut or we find other markets.But indirectly we do if we want to maintain sales by having to lower prices.
Given the trade deficit with the US, we should have had no tariffs, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.So we were already paying 10% and the EU were paying 20%? Brexit bonus then - I’m surprised the remoaners weren’t moaning about that.
We're not North Korea or Russia, we can't expect their favourable treatment from the US.Given the trade deficit with the US, we should have had no tariffs, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
"That includes the UK, with whom the US has a surplus (by its own calculations) of $12bn. By its own reciprocal tariff formula, the UK should be benefitting from a "negative tariff" of 9%.
Instead, it has been hit by a 10% baseline tariff. Number 10 may be breathing a sigh of relief - the US could, after all, have gone after us for our 20% VAT rate on imports, which it takes issue with - but, by Trump's own measure, we haven't got off as lightly as we should have."
![]()
Trump trade war: The blunt calculation that should have spared UK from reciprocal tariffs
Sky's Gurpreet Narwan says the methodology used by the White House to calculate its duties against trading partners should have meant the UK escaped unscathed.news.sky.com