Now Trump is targeting the U.K. with tarriffs how should Sir Keir handle a response?

Where are the politicians, (mainly Johnson, Trust, Hogg, Farage) who pushed for Brexit, persuading the public that the near neighbours Europe were bad for the UK and that the US was a lot better prospect for the future British public?
They even went on his campagne trail. Investing in the US, I think, instead of the UK.

A US will be hard. There is no special relationship. It will be a herd deal which would be including bleached chicken, intensive farmed animals, which are not allowed in the UK and pharmaceutical deals opening up the NHS.
I am sure Sir Kier Starmer will do his best for the ordinary person in the street but considering what those four plus others left him, he doesn’t have many cards to play with.

A US deal it will be a hard deal

Sorry the message changed again.

Not for the time being when its not just tariffs but also security/Ukraine but also just what happens when in a democracy when the President starts undermining the constitution itself.

I'm trying to get my head around the tariff issue as in what best for the UK but we have allies in Europe too. At the moment I think what Starmer is calling a pragmatic approach is probably best rather than declaring war without knowing whats ahead. At PMQ's

"Keir Starmer begins by saying the UK "rules nothing out" when dealing with Donald Trump's tariffs.
He says a trade war benefits nobody, and the UK is "prepared for all eventualities", promising a "calm, pragmatic approach".

"We've been preparing for all eventualities ahead of the confirmation of US tariffs later today," he says.

"Let me be clear with the House, a trade war is in nobody's interest, and the country deserves - and we will take - a calm, pragmatic approach.
"That's why constructive talks are progressing to agree a wider economic prosperity deal with the US. That's why we're working will all industries and sectors likely to be impacted.
"Our decisions will always be guided by our national interest, and that's why we have prepared for all eventualities and we will rule nothing out."

We'll find out later. At PMQ's the opposition had nothing to say really except ask what would we do to protect out car industry.

Meanwhile one thing I feel strongly about is all the tariffs on medicines. It's seems to me it should be exempt across the board. I can't see how its in any country's interest to put bills up

It took some time to find anything from Reform UK on tariffs. In this article Farage says (paraphrase) if only the government had listened to him it would have been different

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-interview-us-tariffs-elon-musk-donald-trump-b1219322.html

"The Reform UK leader said Mr Trump, who he has maintained close ties to, is “emotionally pro British”, but the Government rejected his help in negotiating dodging import duties for UK goods.

Speaking to reporters in Westminster, he said: “In terms of the US trade deal we've blown it. I went into Trump Tower three days after the election back in 2016 to be met by Trump's team. All he wanted to say was we're going to use tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. Apart from on you guys, we want a free trade deal with you guys [the UK]"

2016?

The UK exports more than twice the value of medicinal and pharmaceutical products to the US than it imports.

I don't understand Trump's logic. I know he's complained in the past that the NHS pays less for US-manufactured drugs than US consumers. Tariffs won't help, unless the UK imposes similar tariffs on medicines imported from the US.

I don't see how how imposing tariffs on imported drugs helps the US. American patients will just end up paying even more for their medicines.

Meanwhile, Trump has slashed funding for scientific research, including dozens of grants for HIV research. Therefore, when new drugs are developed, the chances are they will be outside the US and it will have to import them - with tariffs.

Wyllow3

It took some time to find anything from Reform UK on tariffs. In this article Farage says (paraphrase) if only the government had listened to him it would have been different

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-interview-us-tariffs-elon-musk-donald-trump-b1219322.html

"The Reform UK leader said Mr Trump, who he has maintained close ties to, is “emotionally pro British”, but the Government rejected his help in negotiating dodging import duties for UK goods.

Speaking to reporters in Westminster, he said: “In terms of the US trade deal we've blown it. I went into Trump Tower three days after the election back in 2016 to be met by Trump's team. All he wanted to say was we're going to use tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. Apart from on you guys, we want a free trade deal with you guys [the UK]"

2016?

Yeah, well! Of course! I don't suppose there were any witnesses or written records of this meeting. Farage had many years to negotiate free trade deals with a much bigger trading partner - the EU - and he didn't exactly produce much.

Trump is behaving like Hitler so I expect Starmer to behave like Chamberlain

Well....no - a lot depends on how the EU react. For example, read this morning:

"PARIS, April 2 (Reuters) - Europe will respond to the likely implementation of tariffs by U.S. President Donald Trump in a proportionate manner but will not escalate tensions under any circumstances, French industry minister Marc Ferracci said on Wednesday.

"Europe has always been on the side of negotiation and calming things down, because trade wars, you know, only produce losers," Ferracci told RMC radio.

also in the longer term the internal politics in the US as regards the effects of tariffs - different situation altogether.

As for the pressures put in Trump by stock markets etc and well thats beyond my comprehension.

The only way in which it might possibly be relevant apart from maybe saying it's because they are Jewish and that's not on, obviously we don't know what the complaints are and if being Jewish
is involved, can't go there and speculste
The only possible. Relevance is there is a substantial Jewish population in the general area and I know that they have threats to synagogues and Jewish schools so they have to have extra security, and maybe everything is a bit hair trigger, they might think security isn't what it should be. Who knows

I would have expected you to expect that, Orly.

Chamberlain did achieve something by his talks with Herr Hitler - he gained valuable time for Britain to prepare for Hitler's imminent aggression. If Britain had gone to war in 1938, we would have lost.

Jay CD at www.reddit.com/r/UKhistory/comments/178pl92/chamberlain_has_history_been_unkind/ :-
"Chamberlain like many people was haunted by WWI and there was no great appetite for another war with Germany. Even if he had wanted to go to war was the British army/navy and RAF prepared? Europe was recovering from the Great Depression which hit Britain hard and reduced government spending, we were in no shape to fight another war and I have sympathy for his subsequent actions - rearming our armed forces and putting in place plans for a mobilisation of our armed forces as well as planning to evacuate children from London and the south-east (as an aside Operation Pied Piper - evacuation - went into action in late August 1939). So he wasn't totally naive."

The winning strategy is not always the most assertive one. It is also useful to gain time and to consolidate your alliances in defence and trade.

There cannot be absolute free speech, if we had that someone being abused wouldn't be able to take out a non molestation order against an abuser, she wouldn't be able to go to the police if he was coercively controlling her, or stalking her so he could be nasty to her
As the US seems to be examining people's phones looking for anti trump material and taking action if they find it, I think that the US does in principle understand that freedom of speech cannot be absolute. The y are just cherry picking examples of so-called no freedom of speecb
The tongue can be as sharp a weapon as a swird

I agree with everything you have said. There is a very worrying tendency in our country to attack anybody who has a different opinion to our own. It's frightening! Whatever happened to honest debate?

We do need to be careful just what deal we do with the US, we do not want to get a deal that counters existing EU commitments. Our major future ties are going to with Europe not US

“Chamberlain did achieve something by his talks with Herr Hitler - he gained valuable time for Britain to prepare for Hitler's imminent aggression. If Britain had gone to war in 1938, we would have lost.”

We did loose the first part of WW2 most of Europe was occupied, thankfully the RAF stopped the Nazis crossing the channel. It was not until 1942 when US forces arrived in strength that the tide was turned

I agree, and I think we are David. Looks like all are treading cautiously atm.

meddijess I think Social Media has given people the opening for their most intolerant selves to come out. I really regret it. It also allows snippets of bits of half news and part quotes to be published in the public domain that leads to ill informed speculation.

That's if the tariffs take place. There has already been talk of targeted tariffs if necessary. That shows how much I care.

I think Starmer is doing a good job by waiting to see how this whole scenario pans out.. It could all change in the future and we do need to be able to continue negotiating throughout..

However, regardless of whatever trade deals we get our whole economy will be affected by the rest of Europe in particular and the rest of the world if there is a trade war.. We cannot escape even if we get a better deal..

Is it too much to hope that every country that finds itself the target of any kind of unreasonable demand from Trump would just tell him to go and chase himself?

Or we could all hope that our politicians just thump a hearty extra tax on any goods coming in from the US, and that businesses find alternative markets for their goods.

I think there is a lot of research and negotiation going on into alternative markets already. That is where gaining a little time by keeping up calm discussion without outright hostility pays dividends. With quiet but firm diplomacy it is possible to rebuff one-way "deals" and hostile takeover bids while increasing future alternatives in case existing markets become unsustainable.

Namsnanny

Cossy

Churchview

The Telegraph is reporting that the US have issued a statement saying it is concerned about 'freedom of expression' in the UK and that there will be no free trade without free speech.

The US have stated they are watching a specific case in particular. The case is of a woman who was prosecuted for holding up a sign in the buffer zone outside of a Bournemouth abortion clinic. US officials have met with the woman.

Surely this is another country interfering with our country's rights to make and uphold its own laws. It is blackmail.

The fact that the matter concerns abortion should be a real concern I feel.

Aside from the fact that we do, in the main, still have freedom of speech and freedom of action.

No woman, ever, anywhere, should be harassed whilst seeking advice about a termination or indeed actually have one!

Bournemouth woman deserves all she gets imo.

We do in the main .....
That's an oxymoron I think Cossy

One can't in the main be either dead or alive, pregnant or not. One is or isn't.

Bournemouth woman deserves all she gets imo ...

Here in lies the rub, it is your opinion, but without free speech and action, she would not have her freedom of speech or action to articulate her opinion.

Churchview ... there is no blackmail here, every business has the right to choose who they deal with.
Articulating why they are acting the way they do isn't threatening anyone.

Obama lecturing us on voting the way he wanted or there would be consequences is more representative of blackmail.

I agree that no woman, ever, anywhere should be harassed whist seeking advice about termination of a pregnancy or having an abortion.

AuntieE

Is it too much to hope that every country that finds itself the target of any kind of unreasonable demand from Trump would just tell him to go and chase himself?

Or we could all hope that our politicians just thump a hearty extra tax on any goods coming in from the US, and that businesses find alternative markets for their goods.

The issue is that the US imports more than it exports, which I must admit I find a bit surprising, given the size and potential of the US. Trump is hoping that Americans will switch to buying American-made goods, so the balance of trade deficit will decrease and employment should rise. The tariff on cars will be particularly appealing to cities such as Detroit, which will hope for an upturn in the American car industry.

In the short term, exporters to the US will have to find new markets for their goods, which isn't going to happen overnight, so it's likely that exporting countries will lose revenue. They will pay a heavy price for telling Trump to "chase himself".

Tit-for-tat raising of tariffs on goods coming from the US will just increase prices in the importing countries, so that's not an ideal solution.

America is the richest economy in the world, so of course it's going to be a huge market. The second biggest economy is China, which is a difficult market apart from luxury goods. China can produce most goods much more cheaply than the UK, so it's not going to be interested in importing British goods - apart from premium goods and intellectual services. One successful export to China is English language teaching, but that's not going to help pharmaceutical manufacturers. It's going to take time to find markets for those which will be lost and will inevitably result in turmoil in businesses which rely on exports to the US.

It really isn't a question of knee-jerk retaliation.

mae13

Oh, he'll grovel in an attempt to appease Madman Trump. He still believes in the so-called Special Relationship. Ha!

'Special relationship' ? What a joke 😃!

Elegran

I think there is a lot of research and negotiation going on into alternative markets already. That is where gaining a little time by keeping up calm discussion without outright hostility pays dividends. With quiet but firm diplomacy it is possible to rebuff one-way "deals" and hostile takeover bids while increasing future alternatives in case existing markets become unsustainable.

Yes, a lot to be said for not getting pulled into sudden dramatic decisions.