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

Only mentioned it because

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

Re the Dow Jones et al.
It’s weekend.
Good.
Time to calm down and reflect instead of frantic knee jerk buying/selling frenzy. A period of reflection by the protagonists will probably be a Good Thing.

That woman ought to have stayed outside the buffer zone.
Yes, silent protest but she knew what she was doing.
She chanced her arm and paid the price for that.
Rules apply to everyone.
Simple.

Elegran

fancythat - "I predict it will make America richer. We will have to wait and see."

- but will it make ordinary Americans richer? Or make their wages stretch further? I predict that ordinary Americans (ie, not the millionaires or billionaires) will in practice end up poorer.

How will the tariffs be positive for Americans?

If they chose not to sell their stock funds at the high, they've lost faux money, if they wait the sharers may drop further and they may lose the profits since the election. The Dow is off 2600 in the past 5 days.

Of course clever people took profits last week, however some may have neglected to trade. Ordinary people not just billionaires.

I think I read (maybe it was on Gransnet) that she was arrested, not for protesting in itself, but because she did so within the legally defined buffer zone that allows people visiting the centre to get to the entrance without personal harassment.

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.

Update - this lady was in court today.

"Tossici-Bolt was given a conditional discharge and ordered not to commit any additional offences over a two-year period. She was ordered to pay costs of £20,000 towards what the judge said had been the “considerable” resources expended by the local authority, along with £26 towards a victim surcharge fee"

(No one should fret too much about costs, as she has been supported by a US anti-abortion group)

There was no immediate reaction from the US state department after the DRL’s recent statement that it was monitoring the case and that it was “important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression”.

A Downing Street spokesperson said it was vital that women using abortion services could do so “without being subject to harassment or distress” and that the right to protest did not “give people the right to harass others”.

www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/04/abortion-campaigner-livia-tossici-bolt-buffer-zone-clinic#:~:text=Tossici%2DBolt%20was%20given%20a,towards%20a%20victim%20surcharge%20fee.

Elegran

fancythat - "I predict it will make America richer. We will have to wait and see."

- but will it make ordinary Americans richer? Or make their wages stretch further? I predict that ordinary Americans (ie, not the millionaires or billionaires) will in practice end up poorer.

Our retirement account is down over $150,000. If any American is getting richer, it isn't me.

In fact, even MAGA is starting to push back. Congress is starting to band together and push back. Which is why it is interesting to me to see people around the world think this is good for America.

Not even his core base thinks this is good.

David49

I have to hope that the US sees an improvement, my wife has a brother and a sister working over there, either work for the government both are near retirement. Having made their money I think both will retire to the UK.

Neither work

I have to hope that the US sees an improvement, my wife has a brother and a sister working over there, either work for the government both are near retirement. Having made their money I think both will retire to the UK.

fancythat - "I predict it will make America richer. We will have to wait and see."

- but will it make ordinary Americans richer? Or make their wages stretch further? I predict that ordinary Americans (ie, not the millionaires or billionaires) will in practice end up poorer.

This is how the tariffs were worked out. Not a like for alike on actual tariffs at all but a maths formula depending on trade deficits....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o

This BBC verify article details "how they were worked out" and asks "so are they reciprocal", and "was the way they were worked out actually applied correctly"

"Are the Trump tariffs 'reciprocal'?
Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.

Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).

But the White House's official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.
Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US's goods trade deficit with each country.

Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.

For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.

Whitewavemark2

Casdon

How can it be methodical if he’s included two uninhabited countries and a military base - and why was it in a random order? It was done in a simplistic way, using a mathematical formula you could drive a bus through, as many of the observers and politicians have done. That’s not my idea of the standard of work expected for such a major piece of work of the most wealthy country in the world. It’s embarrassing for the USA.

The real issue is that this will have a devastating affect on many poor countries, antagonise countries that the USA could well look to for support in future and have the opposite to the intended effect on the USA economy where the ordinary MAGA voter will be hit the hardest.

I predict it will make America richer.
We will have to wait and see.

Will it antagonise those Countries who charge the US more than the US want to charrge them?
That would be hypocritical surely?
Havent looked up how many of them there are.

fancythat

Casdon

How can it be methodical if he’s included two uninhabited countries and a military base - and why was it in a random order? It was done in a simplistic way, using a mathematical formula you could drive a bus through, as many of the observers and politicians have done. That’s not my idea of the standard of work expected for such a major piece of work of the most wealthy country in the world. It’s embarrassing for the USA.

We will have to agree to differ.

Yes, I think we will. I think he will be backtracking within a week, and team heads will roll.

Whitewavemark2

Casdon

How can it be methodical if he’s included two uninhabited countries and a military base - and why was it in a random order? It was done in a simplistic way, using a mathematical formula you could drive a bus through, as many of the observers and politicians have done. That’s not my idea of the standard of work expected for such a major piece of work of the most wealthy country in the world. It’s embarrassing for the USA.

The real issue is that this will have a devastating affect on many poor countries, antagonise countries that the USA could well look to for support in future and have the opposite to the intended effect on the USA economy where the ordinary MAGA voter will be hit the hardest.

True. It will also have far more of an impact in the short to medium term the world over, and particularly on Americans themselves. The forecasts are looking gloomy.

Casdon

How can it be methodical if he’s included two uninhabited countries and a military base - and why was it in a random order? It was done in a simplistic way, using a mathematical formula you could drive a bus through, as many of the observers and politicians have done. That’s not my idea of the standard of work expected for such a major piece of work of the most wealthy country in the world. It’s embarrassing for the USA.

We will have to agree to differ.

Whitewavemark2

What special arrangement is that?

Political trade restrictions

Casdon

How can it be methodical if he’s included two uninhabited countries and a military base - and why was it in a random order? It was done in a simplistic way, using a mathematical formula you could drive a bus through, as many of the observers and politicians have done. That’s not my idea of the standard of work expected for such a major piece of work of the most wealthy country in the world. It’s embarrassing for the USA.

The real issue is that this will have a devastating affect on many poor countries, antagonise countries that the USA could well look to for support in future and have the opposite to the intended effect on the USA economy where the ordinary MAGA voter will be hit the hardest.

How can it be methodical if he’s included two uninhabited countries and a military base - and why was it in a random order? It was done in a simplistic way, using a mathematical formula you could drive a bus through, as many of the observers and politicians have done. That’s not my idea of the standard of work expected for such a major piece of work of the most wealthy country in the world. It’s embarrassing for the USA.

He has done it in a methodical way.

I question whether it was wise to do it to 186 Countries all at the same time.

Potentially destabilising for the world finance Markets. doing it all at once?

fancythat

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

About 186 I think! Just gone and counted.

Applying the same formula to 186 Countries, and leaving 4 out, is in my book, definitely not random. Very far from it.

Regarding your worry about my use of the term random😊.

What I mean is that to apply exactly the same formula to every country on earth bar 4 is in my mind entirely random,, - it makes zero sense.

If you like you can replace the term random with nonsensical.

I’m easy it amounts to the same lunatic decision.

Not how I think of the word random.

Online dictionary
made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision

I think it was exactly the opposite.

It was a real balls up of a conscious decision, which is much more serious than it being random. I hope there aren’t too many more decisions of such importance implemented so badly. It was obvious from the moment he was handed a board, with countries in no particular order that it was an amateur job.

OK as you wish. I’m totally relaxed about it.

Not something I can be interested enough in debating tbh.

I am more interested in the outcome of Trumps actions.

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

About 186 I think! Just gone and counted.

Applying the same formula to 186 Countries, and leaving 4 out, is in my book, definitely not random. Very far from it.

Regarding your worry about my use of the term random😊.

What I mean is that to apply exactly the same formula to every country on earth bar 4 is in my mind entirely random,, - it makes zero sense.

If you like you can replace the term random with nonsensical.

I’m easy it amounts to the same lunatic decision.

Not how I think of the word random.

Online dictionary
made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision

I think it was exactly the opposite.

What special arrangement is that?

Whitewavemark2

The whole point is was that it was entirely random!!

There were no tariffs for Russia, Cuba, Belarus and North Korea😄😄

But he used a formula that took no nuanced approach that you would need to make a sensible decision ( if indeed world wide tariffs can ever be deemed sensible) about each country’s exports to the USA.

They will have a “special” arrangement with those 4 outside the usual tarrif ststem, just like we do.

fancythat

About 186 I think! Just gone and counted.

Applying the same formula to 186 Countries, and leaving 4 out, is in my book, definitely not random. Very far from it.

Regarding your worry about my use of the term random😊.

What I mean is that to apply exactly the same formula to every country on earth bar 4 is in my mind entirely random,, - it makes zero sense.

If you like you can replace the term random with nonsensical.

I’m easy it amounts to the same lunatic decision.