The significant diplomatic achievement is that this allows the UK to pursue a comprehensive EU agreement covering aspects like food standards.
Financially speaking, this agreement with the US is comparatively modest, but it holds significant importance for particular industries.
It mitigates much of the trade harm caused by Trump’s initial statement, particularly affecting the automotive sector. A source informed me that changing the rate from 27.5% to 10% would essentially rescue UK car exporters more than £1 billion from what had been an “existential crisis” for the industry.
Although no longer an existential threat, this issue still causes significant pain. The specifics of the quota remain ambiguous, particularly regarding its handling of components from abroad—such as Chinese-made batteries—and it caps at 100,000 vehicles. For instance, JLR had high hopes for their newly unveiled Jaguar model in the U.S., aiming to increase sales figures beyond this limit.
On the contrary, the discussion included aspects related to U.S. agriculture, such as quotas for beef imports. Additionally, several topics did not receive attention; notably absent were developments regarding the digital services tax and tariff issues concerning U.S. automobiles.
The most significant aspect of this situation is that the 10% reciprocal tariff remains intact, despite the UK importing substantially more goods from the US than vice versa. This indicates that the tariff is non-negotiable for all parties involved and might lead to broader implications.
Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s presentation at the White House seemed to indicate a somewhat lopsided “agreement” wherein the UK proposed giving the US “unparalleled access” as a means to rescue its automobile sector.
The United States increased tariffs on the UK from 3.4% to 10%, whereas the UK reduced its tariffs by about 67% from 5.1% down to 1.8%. This situation doesn’t appear particularly reciprocal.
However, this is crucial. The UK and US interpret these figures quite differently.
From an American viewpoint, tripling the tariffs acts as a levy on foreign entities that generates income for the U.S. Treasury. However, from a British standpoint, these increased duties function as a surcharge on local shoppers, thereby fueling inflation; hence, reducing their level is beneficial per se.
At the Bank of England, the absence of counteraction and the acceptance of redirected merchandise from Asia are factors contributing to a gentler rise in inflation. This has facilitated today’s interest rate reduction, with further cuts expected.
Governor Andrew Bailey informed me that he hopes this agreement will signify the beginning of numerous deals aimed at easing global trade tensions.
The true victory might lie in how this tariff pact keeps the United States content while still paving the way for a significant agreement with the European Union.
This has the potential to hold greater economic importance for the UK, considering that the UK’s biggest trade partner is within reach. By upholding British food standards and refraining from importing items like hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken, a comprehensive agreement on food and agricultural exports with the EU akin to what Switzerland enjoys can realistically materialize over the coming two weeks. Such an arrangement could significantly reduce bureaucratic hurdles for major exporting entities moving goods back and forth after Brexit.
Next, you get an overview of an expanding economy, characterized by strong trading relationships with the US, EU, India, and shortly with the Gulf region as well, alongside interest rate reductions.
The government aims to depict the UK as a bastion of trade and political stability amidst a chaotic global landscape, following years of upheaval. This stands in stark contrast to the recession-driven pessimism observed earlier in the year, and it could potentially succeed.
Leave a Reply