Vocal Voices

That WTO rules can be bent if you are a big enough stick.

His tariffs on steel and aluminium have been imposed using the national security loophole in the WTO rules.

The EU are now looking to impose similar tariffs in self protection. This could, in the short term, be a big bonus for the Port Talbot workers as it will significantly reduce Chinese steel imports into the UK and the EU. In the longer term the UK will be damaged because we actually export more to China than we suck in from steel and aluminium. So the EU reaction may hurt the UK more than the mainstream EU.

The interesting point was that the EU is using the "short term" rules to protect themselves from the impact of the Trump action (i.e. that China might flood the EU with metal products intended for the US), because, they say, any challenge in the WTO could take "years" to resolve. I note that the "short term" tariffs the EU brought in for solar products are still in force, years later.

This is quite interesting because everyone told the UK government that we couldn't impose tariffs on the EU, outside of WTO rules because we "were not allowed to". Interesting how the story changes.....

Trump, yet again, is continuing on his trail of implementing his campaign promises. I'm pretty certain that when he goes for re-election, one of his main claims to fame will be that he implemented every single one of his promises, unlike any other previous incumbent of the office.

Well we never wanted a dull life did we???

Trump has not bent WTO rules, he has used a combination of domestic national security laws and the WTO rule to impose restrictions when there are exigent threats to national security. These are the rules the UK is about to trade under.

Trump is not daft. He has used the figures that the US imports four times more (steel) than it exports and that the direct worrforce has dropped from about 135,000 in 2015 to about 83,000 today. These, he claims, impact on the US military industrial complex's ability to defend the nation. Others might not like what has been done, but they are not big players.

This is quite interesting because everyone told the UK government that we couldn't impose tariffs on the EU, outside of WTO rules because we "were not allowed to". Interesting how the story changes....

.
Not so. What was said was that the UK could not put 35% tariffs on German (EU) cars or other specific goods without also putting the same tariffs on the same specifics from the rest of the world. We can unilaterally put any tariff we like on any EU goods, but we would also have to do it to every other trading partner otherwise we break the WTO most-favoured-nation (MFN) rule. They would all hit back with the same tariffs in reverse and it would be economic suicide.

Workingman wrote:Not so. What was said was that the UK could not put 35% tariffs on German (EU) cars or other specific goods without also putting the same tariffs on the same specifics from the rest of the world. We can unilaterally put any tariff we like on any EU goods, but we would also have to do it to every other trading partner otherwise we break the WTO most-favoured-nation (MFN) rule. They would all hit back with the same tariffs in reverse and it would be economic suicide.

Not quite. Trump has not levied these tariffs on the entire world. Only on the world which does not have a free trade agreement with them.

This would be the same with the UK. We could levy 35% on EU built cars, but have trade deals with Japan, the US, South Korea and China; which allowed us to not have that trade barrier.

One of the key reasons the EU is absolutely desperate to stop the UK from writing any trade agreements before they are ready for them.

However it always gets conflated to "No you can't". Actually, as Trump has proven. Yes you can. Mind you arguing with the largest economy in the world (even larger than the EU), is never going to be easy to win.

Yes they say that Trump is going to hurt the US more than he helps the US. That is to be seen.

What the UK does is still in discussion. The most interesting statement I've seen from a cabinet minister, in the last two days, is "The EU can create a border in NI if they want to but trade deal, or no trade deal, the UK is not going to"..

Trump is making the first small steps towards protecting his country's workforce and protecting his country's manufacturing capacity. Good for him.

Pity we have never had the nous to do the same. We are already far too reliant on world trade; as a country, we need to be much more self-sufficient - whatever the "cost".

It's a question of priorities - and global capitalism is well down my list of same.

TheOstrich wrote: Trump is making the first small steps towards protecting his country's workforce and protecting
his country's manufacturing capacity. Good for him. Pity we have never had the nous to do the same. We are already
far too reliant on world trade; as a country, we need to be much more self-sufficient - whatever the "cost".

It's a question of priorities - and global capitalism is well down my list of same.

Well said, Osie. I quite agree.

In our interconnected world, the consequences of a trade war are difficult to estimate. However if you want to put your country first you need to try, at the very least.

Self-sufficient, eh. That depends upon how 'self-sufficient' is defined.

One person's self-sufficient will be very different from another's self-sufficient, as will be the case with regions or countries.

Is it everything organic and only found within the borders of a place; or is it 'we are fine until we run out'; or is it 'we have enough money to buy everything we need without going into debt'; or is it as described by 'experts and capitalists' as that day's economic model?

The first requires no external trade, so not good. The last means wringing the planet dry: also not good.

The truth is that there is no longer any such thing as self-sufficiency. We need to trade in order to make the world a better place for us all. Unfortunately we do not seem to be able to do it equitably for everyone.

I do not think world trade has ever been seen as making it a better place.

More a place to make more money.

It certainly works well to make life better for the 'haves', and if they can add six or seven 0's after what they already have behind their £ or $ signs, so much the better.

That is where we are.

Money, money, money. © Abba 1- 0 self-sufficiency.

Yes but with a world market, you don't need to be self sufficient. When you are one of the largest economies in the world you just buy what you need.

Contrary to those who believe our life should be shackled to the EU, the EU is not the only producer of food, nor is it the cheapest. The US sells Soybeans to China. In volume.

In fact when you look at the list of largest agricultural producers, why are we even thinking about trading with the EU anyway??

And whilst we think about that one. If we were to have wide open trade deals with the US, Canada, India and Brazil, we're done for having sufficient product.

Self sufficiency is a chimera. You look at those tables and you would believe Germany is fine. Yet Germany is the largest food importer in the EU.