RayC

Thank goodness that governing the UK is as straightforward as you portray it, and that international issues never affect the UK. "'Put the domestic issues in this box please and the overseas ones in that one'. We'll deal with the domestic ones first. What's that? Trump is attempting to redefine international trade? Never mind that for now, we've got to deal with some applications for planning permission in Telford.'"

It is difficult to switch suppliers in the very short term, so to that extent it could be argued that the rest of the world NEEDS the US. Obviously, this dependency works the other way as well. (Incidentally, this short term dependency also explains why US tariff revenue is at record levels). However, outside of this very short time-scale it is a different story: Other nations will WANT to deal with the US but very few will NEED to. On the (US) export side, substitutes for most US goods will be available elsewhere; other things being equal, there shouldn't be any major problems with capacity as goods which were originally destined for the US market can be diverted. All that Trump's tariffs will succeed in doing is reducing the demand for US goods and financially injuring the US producer and ultimately the US consumer. As far as (overseas) exports to the US are concerned; yes, nations will want to deal with the US but not at any price: No deal is better than a bad deal. I suspect that Trump will wrestle a few concessions from nations and claim a great victory, when in reality nothing much will have changed. I doubt very much that there will be a fundamental reordering of the structure of world trade as some posters suggest. Going off on a slight tangent. I am still baffled why Trump believes that relocating cheap textile manufacturing from the likes of Bangladesh and Vietnam - and cheap electrical manufacturing from China - to the US is a good idea. Are these the types of low-paid jobs which the average American worker wants to fill? Even in the unlikely event that is the case, these jobs are likely to very temporary, as capital innovation will probably soon render human labour mostly redundant in these types of industries.

In a departure from tradition, PM Carney did not firstly thank his family and friends, instead he opened with, "Thanks, Don. I couldn't have done it without you".

Humanity rules the waves.

My detestation of Hamas dates back to 2nd December 1987. I remember it well. It was a Wednesday and I played squash in the evening🤦 Have they? Unfortunately, they still appear to have plenty of support. Were they? There were also plenty of people who considered them terrorists from the outset. Assuming that is the case, you had best ask a Hamas supporter.

Another example of misplaced arrogance. The US may have decided to opt-out from the MFN, the remainder of the world has not and need not. If the manufacturing of consumer goods returns to the US en masse, it will undoubtedly lead to inflation (or wage deflation). Whether - and how much of this - the US consumer will put up with is another matter. Chinese companies may decide to focus on quality rather than price in the future, but that will have nothing to do with Trump's tariff policies. Unless the demand for the good is inelastic - and that is not the case for most consumer goods - all that will happen is that there will be fewer goods sold and, in all probability, a recession will occur. A threat that I suspect that China, the EU and, perhaps, the rest of the G7 would find unacceptable and refuse to agree to. Trump's actions undermine the US economy and the dollar's status as a stable, trustworthy currency. I'm not sure that the ECB would welcome the Euro becoming the reserve currency but maybe it would have little choice but to accept the role. Who knows, maybe things will edge back towards the Gold Standard or maybe, crypto really is the way forwards?

That's fair enough. I made a mistake. I misread the OP. Having re-read it, I withdraw my support for that post.

At least one person has implied otherwise. Agreed. Even with your later correction, I have no idea why you address this comment to me. For the record and in case you are wondering, I detest anti-Semitism and the actions of Hamas.

Governments have to deal with both domestic and overseas events. It's a fact of political life.

Certainly the latter.

So therefore you disagree with the rest of the OP and my reply?

1) MFN is a cornerstone of the WTO. To jettison it would seriously (fatally?) undermine the WTO. For that reason alone, I doubt that it will happen. I also disagree that as a principle the concept of MFN is obsolete: It helps to level the playing field in the absence of FTAs. 2) New trade alliances are regularly formed. The world didn't need the imposition of Trump's tariffs to further that goal 3) Call me cynical but I'm extremely skeptical that the plight of low paid workers in other countries was foremost in the mind of Trump and his advisors when formulating his tariff policies! In any event, many consumers want to pay ridiculously low prices for products and have little concern about workers' conditions. It is an issue that needs addressing and, perhaps, the targeted use of tariffs is one tool for doing so but it has nothing to do with Trump's policy. If the US becomes increasingly self-sufficient and thus, presumably, reduces the volume of its' overseas trade transactions, why would the rest of the world want to keep the dollar as the world's reserve currency? I can certainly see why the US favours this outcome but I don't see what's in it for the rest of the world. In such a case - and other things being equal - the rest of us would be better off with the Euro, Yen or even renminbi.

Excellent post. Makes a refreshing change from the usual, simplistic 'Blame the immigrants and Muslims' rants. As a Labour supporter, I have been largely disappointed by the actions of this government to date. Although events e.g. Trump's actions haven't helped, many of their problems have been self-inflicted. There are some green shoots: The apparent desire to re-engage constructively with the EU being one. Nevertheless, a long way to go. As for the alternatives. Imo Reform are light on policy detail and would bring greater division. The Liberals? Perhaps, but I would be concerned about their economic management. The Tories are a unorganised mess. Woe is us?

Right. And this reduction in trading volumes and chaos in the markets benefits the American consumer how exactly? As I said previously, Trump's tariffs are an act of economic sado-masochism.

A prime example of the misplaced arrogance which I mentioned previously. The American consumer IS important to the world, but is NOT all powerful and indispensable. Take your head out of the sand, look at the data e.g. the proportion of world trade which doesn't involve the US (+/-85%) and then reach some rational conclusions.

I agree with most of that but struggle to understand 1) why - and how - you think that global trade is already changing shape in response to US tariffs? Currently, other than a decrease in trading volumes and increased volatility in the financial markets I can't see any fundamental changes 2) what this fundamental reordering of world trade will eventually look like? 3) why you seemingly imply in other posts that the outcome is inevitable, especially given that you agree that world trade can continue without the US? As I said previously, no doubt the US will squeeze some concessions from other nations but there is a limit. As the old saying goes, 'No deal is better than a bad deal'.

??? I don't understand. You'll have to clarify exactly what you mean. If your goal was to irritate me then congratulations, you've succeeded: There's little I dislike more than someone telling me what I think and/or believe. Much depends on the product of course, but If Trump keeps this blanket worldwide tariff, the demand for US goods will fall. Ample opportunity for other countries - especially low-cost producers such as China - to step into the breach and reduce any perceived over-production. If you count China as un(der)developed the I agree but it is also a mega-market. In 2022 the US accounted for 13% of the world's goods imports ($3.1tn) and 8% of the world's exports ($2.0tn). No denying that they are big absolute numbers and significant proportions. However, the idea that the world's economy will simply collapse if the US decides to disengage itself is pie in the sky. The current tariff war is obviously different in nature to Brexit but the analogy is justified. The misplaced, arrogant conceit of Brexiters is mirrored by supporters of Trump; the mantra is the same, 'They need us more than we need them'. There can be little doubt that in the case of Brexit this has has been proven untrue. I will concede that the US has a stronger hand to play in any negotiations than the UK had and Trump may well win some concessions from other nations, however, I very much doubt that it will lead to a fundamental reordering of international trade. Imo in the medium/longer term, Trump's policy will be viewed in a similar light to Brexit: an act of economic sado-masochism.

Master negotiator? What more leverage has Trump achieved by applying wholesale tariffs rather than by simply contacting his counterparts in the more traditional fashion? The current tariffs applied by the US on China (and vica versa) will cause a massive decline in trade between the two nations but whether China cannot afford it is debatable. The US accounts for 15% of China's exports which is a significant number. However, the negative effects on China of losing the US market will be mitigated by the fact that the rest of the world will also be seeking new suppliers as a result of the tariff war. Moreover, don't forget that the obvious fact that a tariff war works both ways, and that US exporters to China will be greatly affected by Chinese tariffs on US goods (as will the wider US economy as the attached links indicate). https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kxe1m1y26o.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/04/28/trade-war-tariffs-full-blown-crisis-us-farm-exporters-say.html Indeed. And if the recent pronouncements from various countries are anything to go by that will mean a move away from the US market with countries seeking closer ties with more reliable partners. For example, Rachel Reeves has recently stated that the EU market is (arguably) more important to the UK than the US. Her's is not a lone voice. No doubt there are US produced goods which cannot easily be substituted but equally the reverse applies i.e. that US companies are dependent on goods produced overseas. Michel Barnier's comment that, 'There are no winners with Brexit' can be paraphrased and reused here: 'There are no winners in a trade war', which is why Trump's policy is in no one's interest.

If Trump feels that the US gets a bad deal wet trade, it would have been so much better if he has simply got on the phone to Xi, v.d. Leyden, etc and arranged bi-lateral talks. No one is going to refuse to talk to POTUS. All his current approach has succeed in doing is spooking the markets and alienating the US's allies while making China look not so bad. The Uruguay Round of GATT - which resulted in the formation of the WTO - started in 1986 and took 8 years to conclude. The rules governing world trade have slowly evolved ever since. The US is the world's most powerful nation, however, the idea that the rest of the world will simply tear up the existing rule book, roll over and be bullied into accepting US-centric trade conditions is imo extremely unlikely. Moreover, it is even more unlikely that any wide-ranging agreements could be reached before the end of Trump's term in office. If Trump persists with his bullying techniques, I suspect that the rest of the world will simply reduce their bi-lateral trade with the US as much as possible, accept that their will be an economic hit (while obviously trying to mitigate the effect as much as possible), and just wait until January 2029 when the hope will be that a sense of normality can be restored.

The article criticises China for a policy aimed at making itself self-sufficient, whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that is one of the goals of Trump's current measures. The article warns Europe about the dangers of being exploited by China whilst implicitly implying that we should simply follow the US without question. An ill thought out, irrational article reeking of hypocrisy.

In which case - assuming US manufacturers don't have a monopoly on a particular type of CNC machine or component(s) - China will simply substitute European and Japanese-made products for US-made products. In such a scenario, there may be short-term supply issues and an increase in product prices, but I guess that these types of products are not purchased every day, so it shouldn't affect the individual Chinese company too much in the MT/LT. It seems to me that, at an aggregated level, the biggest loser in this scenario is likely to be the US manufacturing as it loses both market share and revenue.

😂 You've been predicting that for at least 5 years.

What does "actually implement Brexit" entail specifically?

Macron's what? How is the EU trying to bully the UK?

Funnily enough being a member of the EU does not prohibit a member state exporting to the US (for the time being at least). I've posted numerous links umpteenth times which detail the damage done to the UK by Brexit. Here's a reminder for you: