Britain says EU is removing tariffs on steel under quota
In May, Britain agreed the most significant reset of defence and trade ties with the European Union since Brexit, which included a 'bespoke arrangement' to protect UK steel exports from new EU rules and tariffs.
Britain had said the European Commission would restore its country-specific steel quota to pre-2022 levels, but had not previously specified when this would take effect.
Trade minister Jonathan Reynolds said the removal of tariffs was 'yet another positive step forward for the UK steel sector' after the government intervened to save jobs at British Steel and struck a deal to avoid the highest U.S. steel tariffs.
'Restoring our steel quota helps give producers the certainty they need to compete, grow, and maintain vital export relationships,' he said.
Britain said it could export up to 27,000 tonnes of steel to the EU each quarter without paying an extra tariff under the arrangement.
Gareth Stace, director general of UK Steel, said the restoration of the quota was 'excellent news', adding companies had been 'plagued by problems' shipping items like support beams.
Britain is yet to conclude negotiations with the United States after both sides agreed in May to work to eliminate steel tariffs on exports from Britain.
British steel exports to the U.S. face tariffs of 25%, and avoided an increase to 50% thanks to its U.S. agreement, but talks to remove the tariffs have stalled due to discussions over supply chains and where British steel is 'melted and poured' - REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
The US can survive tariffs. That doesn't mean they're worth it
ON hearing of the Continental Army's pivotal victory at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, John Sinclair told Adam Smith, 'The British nation must be ruined'. As Sinclair recalled, the author of The Wealth of Nations (published the year before) urged him to calm down. 'Be assured, my young friend, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.' Dedicated though he was to the benefits of free trade, Smith would doubtless say the same about today's turn toward mercantilism in the United States. It's a blow, but not the end of the world. That's worth noting: Catastrophism, a popular mode of discourse these days, is usually unhelpful. But champions of President Donald Trump's approach to trade are apt to make the opposite mistake – namely, thinking that if the roof hasn't fallen in, the policy must be succeeding. If it results in slower growth and persistent under-performance, that might not be 'ruin', but it sure isn't victory. Once Trump's new system of tariffs has settled down – if it ever does – what might it cost? What might 'less than ruin' amount to? According to most estimates, the direct economic losses are certainly tolerable, especially for a huge and relatively closed economy like the US. One recent study explores the upper limit on what's at stake by calculating the benefits of liberal trade compared with no trade at all. For the US, the costs of closing the economy altogether would fall in the range of 2% to 8% of GDP. The costs of less trade, as opposed to no trade, would naturally be smaller still. Earlier this month the US Federal Reserve published a research note on the effects of specific tariffs. Its economists modelled an increase of 60 percentage points in the US tariff on imports from China, with and without a 'baseline' tariff of 10% on other trading partners, assuming for one set of scenarios that the trade deficit is unchanged and for another that it shrinks. According to their model, the 60% extra tariff on China, the 10% baseline tariff on everybody else, plus a 25% reduction in the trade deficit would cut US GDP by a little under 3%. (China's losses would be about the same; thanks to shifts in the pattern of trade, the rest of the world would come out about even.) These and other such studies reveal the complexity of the changes caused by trade barriers. For example, surely tariffs would reduce imports and hence shrink the trade deficit. Why assume, as some of the Fed's scenarios do, that the deficit doesn't change? Actually, it's far from obvious that the trade deficit will narrow. You'd expect a smaller trade deficit to make the dollar appreciate – in due course increasing imports, cutting exports, and undoing the initial effect. In any case, the overall external balance is determined by the gap between its saving and investment, which tariffs affect only indirectly. Or consider the surprisingly small estimated cost of closing the economy completely. One of the assumptions behind the estimated losses of 2% to 8% of GDP is that the ease of replacing domestic goods with imports – the so-called elasticity of substitution – can be estimated from current trade data. But as the economy approaches autarky (self-sufficiency), this elasticity might fall abruptly as certain critical foreign products prove difficult or impossible to replace. The costs of abolishing imports might then be much bigger than projected. (Granted, a rational mercantilist would be careful not to press too far: An entirely closed economy isn't the goal.) The list of other complications is endless. What's the effect of trade on competition and innovation? It depends. Up to a point, competition through trade is likely to spur innovation, but if foreign competition is severe enough to shut a domestic industry down, said industry won't be more innovative. The dynamic effects of trade – that is, the effects of trade on growth – are even harder to estimate than the static effects captured in the studies mentioned above. Amid all the uncertainty, two points seem worth emphasising. First, despite the complexities, economists generally agree that trade does deliver net gains – that, on this, Adam Smith was right. If suppressing trade is costly, then exactly how costly is not the most important question. You don't do it. To be sure, the US has a huge domestic market and is richly endowed with natural resources. These advantages mean that trade is likely to deliver smaller gains than it does for other economies. But, to repeat, small gains are better than none. Second, the costs of the new mercantilism aren't confined to the implications for GDP of moving from a settled regime of liberal trade to a settled regime of managed trade. That shift involves massive economic and geopolitical dislocations, which are likely to be costly in themselves. Economic restructuring expends resources; it creates jobs and destroys them. The 'China Shock' was disruptive – but vainly trying to reverse it will be disruptive all over again. In the first case, there were aggregate benefits; in the second, there'll be aggregate losses. Geopolitical dislocation could involve the biggest costs of all. The new mercantilism puts US-led alliances and multilateral institutions under enormous strain. The view that the US has been exploited by these arrangements isn't unwarranted – there's been some free-riding, no doubt – but on balance US global leadership has been an exercise in enlightened self-interest. Dismantling the global trading order, and casting this as overdue retaliation against selfish so-called friends, is to cast away American power. It would be bad policy if undertaken in return for small economic gains. In return for substantial, even if less-than-ruinous, economic losses, it's insane. — Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of the editorial board covering economics.
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Mixed reactions to 19% tariff on M'sian exports
PETALING JAYA: The recent announcement of a reduction in the tariff rate on Malaysian exports to the US, from 25% to 19%, has been portrayed as a major trade win. However, economist Dr Geoffrey Williams has raised concerns over the anticipated benefits of the 6% reduction in import levy for Malaysian goods going into the US. Williams told theSun the tariff reduction only puts Malaysia on a level playing field with Indonesia and the Philippines. He added that the new tariff of 19% accords Malaysia an only marginally better position when stacked against major exporter Vietnam. He compared Malaysia's rate to other countries such as Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom and the European Union, which received bigger reductions. 'Overall, it is just a marginally better position but it still hits Malaysian exports hard. If it causes just a 10% reduction in exports to the US, it will cost RM20 billion. This is RM670 for every Malaysian.' Malaysia joins peers such as Indonesia, Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines at the same tariff rate, while rates on other countries range between 10% and 41%. Williams said Malaysians need to understand what concessions were demanded by the US and what was refused by Malaysia. He foresees business groups calling for government help and support. 'But this will only increase costs to the government, which may redirect subsidy savings to business bailouts. Malaysian Palm Oil Council chief executive officer Belvinder Kaur Sron said the 19% tariff would inevitably have some cost implications for US palm oil importers. However, she does not anticipate any significant impact on Malaysia's overall palm oil exports to this market. 'Most of Malaysia's exports to the US cater to niche, high-value segments.' Belvinder said in the first half of 2025, over 80% of Malaysia's palm oil exports to the US were certified sustainable palm oil and used in high value-added applications. 'Additionally, 11% comprised palm stearin, a key ingredient in food manufacturing and personal care products. These products cater to specialised segments where substitute options are limited, making overall demand relatively inelastic.' She said palm oil exports to the US rose by 35.7% in the first half of 2025, reaching 103,000 metric tonnes compared with 76,000 metric tonnes in the same period last year. 'Malaysia and Indonesia accounted for 97% of palm oil imports into the US in 2024. 'Since both countries are currently subject to the same import tariff of 19%, we continue to compete on a level playing field.' Malaysia Semiconductor Industry Association executive director Andrew Chan said semiconductors are currently excluded from the 19% country tariff, pending a Section 232 review of the US Trade Expansion Act 1962. 'Most electrical and electronic exports to the US, primarily intermediate goods, also fall outside the 19% tariff. 'Although the 19% rate is not the best we could have hoped for, it's also not the worst.' Chan said with details of the negotiations still unclear, it's hard to know what Malaysia may have offered or refused in exchange.
The Star
9 hours ago
- The Star
Silent protest in Cape Town condemns starvation, genocide in Gaza
CAPE TOWN, Aug. 2 (Xinhua) -- A group of women under the banner of Mothers4Gaza held a silent protest on Saturday in Cape Town, South Africa's legislative capital, to denounce what they described as state-sanctioned starvation and genocide in Gaza. With their mouths taped shut, the women stood in Sea Point holding placards that collectively spelled out "STOP GENOCIDE." Some held graphic images of emaciated children and adults, reportedly starved due to the Israeli blockade on food and humanitarian aid. Organizers said the demonstration aimed to draw attention to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and express solidarity with Palestinian mothers and children. The protest, they added, represented those who refuse to normalize mass starvation and ethnic cleansing. The demonstration followed several consecutive days of protests at symbolic locations, including the Cape Town Holocaust and Genocide Centre, the British Consulate General, and the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates. On the same day, another protest took place outside Cape Union Mart, a South African retail chain reportedly linked to Israel. Irene Knight, a Mothers4Gaza member, said they wanted to stand in solidarity with the mothers and children in Palestine. "There's been so much devastation in Palestine. There have been bombings and starvation -- all brought about by the Israeli regime," said Knight. "But there doesn't seem to be an urgency in the world to stop it, and we came here to protest that." Knight urged Western governments to halt funding and arming Israel. "Governments and institutions that have remained silent and complicit need to act. This genocide must end. Israel must be stopped from annihilating Palestine," she said. Greer Blizzard, another Mothers4Gaza member, drew parallels between the situation in Gaza and South Africa's own history, saying that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have endured decades of systemic apartheid, and it is time for the world to bring it to an end. Gaza-based health authorities said earlier that a total of 154 people, including 89 children, have died from starvation and malnutrition. The United Nations Children's Fund reported that nearly all of Gaza's 1.2 million children are in need of mental health and psychosocial support, suffering from depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
