Plan B: Building a trading network rather than retaliating against Trump?

Corruption! Chocolatelovinggran

Surely not, foxie??

Chocolatelovinggran

Surely not, foxie??

I think being in a trading group and Nato would suit us better, currently, than being in a political union but, of course, that is my bias talking. It's not a particularly fact based opinion

I think the idea of a political union is dead and buried for decades.

fancythat

^I think being in a trading group and Nato would suit us better, currently, than being in a political union but, of course, that is my bias talking. It's not a particularly fact based opinion^

I think the idea of a political union is dead and buried for decades.

I think effectively a new trading bloc would be a bloc of democratic nations. In other words, a political union without the paperwork’s binding countries together.

Well, paperwork required for international agreements' trading and standards purposes, but yes.

“As far as I'm aware each of the states of America is as big as a European country so it's amazing that they have stayed "United" for as long s the have.”

Staying together has been their strength, despite their very diverse lifestyles and economies there has never been any serious challenge since the civil war. Their industrial strength all achieved by migrants, even today its migrants that power the economy.

Unlike Europe which have always had self interest and national culture dividing them, that is going to be a very big challenge to make an effective western leader without the US

Impossible I would say.

But is it necessary to have a single "effective western leader?"

Hasn't worked out too well, has it, when that "leader" turns out to be Trump - or someone like him.

A trading bloc doesn’t need a leader though, does it? It’s about reciprocal agreements, not about leadership. Europe and the commonwealth countries are vastly experienced in working in this way already.

The EU is an effective trading bloc, Ukraine has proved defence is everything but united, without the US there is nothing to hold them together. Diverse national politics will make it impossible to have effective defence capability.
Currently if one or two states dont agree with policy it doesn’t matter, the US will fill the gap, it will matter if the US is not there.

I have pretty high confidence that in the “post Trump chaos” era the US will still be there as a backstop, other NATO countries will increase spending to restore capability. If Russia really is a threat to other neighbours, I really don’t see a European force being an effective deterrent to an aggressive Putin.

David49 I think we are at cross purposes. This thread isn’t about defence, it’s about trading to best advantage with like minded countries across the world, as an alternative to punitive tariffs. The EU does not have all the resources needed. Your confidence in the future relationship with the US may or may not be misplaced, who knows yet, but regardless of that, the world order is changing and we need to change our historical trade reliances.

Economically I don’t think there is a problem, I believe we will move closer to the EU, however I don’t think we can replace the 25% of our trade that we have with the US, it’s very much in our interests to maintain that. We are not likely to sell more Whisky or Range Rovers, or other goods into Europe.

With an aggressive neighbour you can’t divorce defence because a lot of resources need to be spent on rearming and manning our forces.

Casdon

fancythat

I think being in a trading group and Nato would suit us better, currently, than being in a political union but, of course, that is my bias talking. It's not a particularly fact based opinion

I think the idea of a political union is dead and buried for decades.

I think effectively a new trading bloc would be a bloc of democratic nations. In other words, a political union without the paperwork’s binding countries together.

That seems a good starting point but I imagine, even within democratic nations each would want some level if protection for some of their own industries.

David49

Economically I don’t think there is a problem, I believe we will move closer to the EU, however I don’t think we can replace the 25% of our trade that we have with the US, it’s very much in our interests to maintain that. We are not likely to sell more Whisky or Range Rovers, or other goods into Europe.

With an aggressive neighbour you can’t divorce defence because a lot of resources need to be spent on rearming and manning our forces.

I’m less concerned about export of what are mainly luxury goods (some of which will still be purchased whether the tariffs are there or not) than I am about our imports of fuel, pharmaceuticals and raw materials David49. It’s about ensuring there is a level playing field, which doesn’t rely so heavily on the USA, simply because historically we have done.

David49

“As far as I'm aware each of the states of America is as big as a European country so it's amazing that they have stayed "United" for as long s the have.”

Staying together has been their strength, despite their very diverse lifestyles and economies there has never been any serious challenge since the civil war. Their industrial strength all achieved by migrants, even today its migrants that power the economy.

Unlike Europe which have always had self interest and national culture dividing them, that is going to be a very big challenge to make an effective western leader without the US

It has been both a strength and, for some states a weakness David49. If you travel in America you can see huge differences between them. Some State Governors have been able to make a great difference. Perhaps the prospective Coalition of Democratic States (countries) should start talking to individual governors in the USA. After all we have all seen how fractious individual states/countries can be when working as a collective - one even left the European Union in a huff!

A bit of trouble in their own back yard might concentrate minds.

Trump has made everything[well it seems everything!], so much more changable.
I wouldnt want to be involved in world trade right now.

Personally, I think I will see where it all settles. If it does.

Situations could all change again next week.

Our imports come from diverse sources, we buy from the most economic supplier, that hasn’t changed, Trump hasnt affected our trade with third countries (yet)

David49

Our imports come from diverse sources, we buy from the most economic supplier, that hasn’t changed, Trump hasnt affected our trade with third countries (yet)

We buy much of our raw materials based on historic trade links David49, best price has not been the only consideration. I don’t understand why you seem to oppose democratic countries working together in a new bloc to get the best deal for us all, and trading collaboratively. We can’t allow USA to dictate. I wish we weren’t where we are, but we have to find new ways.

fancythat

Trump has made everything[well it seems everything!], so much more changable.
I wouldnt want to be involved in world trade right now.

Personally, I think I will see where it all settles. If it does.

Situations could all change again next week.

It’s very uncertain however the US dollar is still stable and remains the main international trading currency. For now we wait and see what sensible tariffs are agreed within the 90 day pause.

It’s very uncertain however the US dollar is still stable and remains the main international trading currency. For now we wait and see what sensible tariffs are agreed within the 90 day pause.

I have seen that there could be moves afoot to change the dominance of the dollar in world trade.

And Trump is trying to sack the Head of the Federal Reserve (the US equivalent of the BoE) who remains independent of him . This could affect the stability of the dollar.

I wouldn't place too much reliance on the current hegemony...

I have also read that the EU is considering the possibility of the euro becoming the reserve currency.

Has a lot going for it.

It is the most stable economic block. Abides by the rules and not subject to the vagaries of an idiot

From the newspaper headlines this morning:

Independent: "“UK move closer to softer Brexit as hopes fade for quick US deal”

Financial Times "Brussels open to taxing Big Tech of Trump talks fail, von Der Leyen says”

it does seem like movements towards less risky trade pacts are on the way.

MaizieD

^It’s very uncertain however the US dollar is still stable and remains the main international trading currency. For now we wait and see what sensible tariffs are agreed within the 90 day pause.^

I have seen that there could be moves afoot to change the dominance of the dollar in world trade.

And Trump is trying to sack the Head of the Federal Reserve (the US equivalent of the BoE) who remains independent of him . This could affect the stability of the dollar.

I wouldn't place too much reliance on the current hegemony...

Of course a seller can ask to be paid in whatever currency he wishes, the dollar could collapse but I would expect the US treasury to maintain value by whatever means.

From this morning's email from The Economist (Zany Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-chief)

It’s been a rollercoaster few days, and as I write this we still have more meetings ahead. But several things are already clear to me. First, this show has only one protagonist who matters: Mr Trump. There is no tariff strategy beyond his whims. Second, although Mr Trump blinked yesterday, don’t think that this Tariff Show is over. America is still engaged in a brutal tit-for-tat trade war with China. (The two countries’ headline tariffs on each other are now 145% and 84% respectively and neither Mr Trump nor Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, wants to lose face by backing down.) America still has a 10% duty on virtually all other countries, by itself a dramatic increase. And while Mr Trump now promises great deals from negotiations with the dozens of countries queuing up to talk to him, he retains his long-held conviction that tariffs are a powerful weapon to ensure manufacturing jobs return to America. The trouble is that if companies are really to be persuaded to reshore manufacturing jobs to America, then America’s tariffs will need to stay high. But if they stay high, what incentive do trading partners have to give huge concessions? Mr Trump’s muddled convictions, and the contradictions they contain, will hang over all the many bilateral negotiations his team is about to start.

That is why, as our cover leader explains, the damage of the past week cannot be easily undone. Yes, markets have recovered from a near meltdown. But Mr Trump has upended the old certainties that underpinned the global economy and introduced extraordinary levels of volatility and confusion. We are, as our cover title says, in the “age of chaos”. That may be exactly what you want in a nail-biting TV show. In the real world, it is a disaster.