Britain's tariff burden worse than EU
Britain faces a higher rate of US tariff than the European Union despite Donald Trump's hatred of Brussels, new analysis shows.
The UK's effective tariff rate – the average charged on British goods exported to the US – is 11.6pc, compared with 9.5pc for the EU, according to Capital Economics.
British imports also face a higher average rate than Mexico, Canada, India, Thailand and Vietnam.
The figures reflect the mix of products being exported to the US. Despite the UK facing just the minimum 10pc tariff introduced by Mr Trump, compared with 20pc for the EU, many British exports are subject to sector-specific levies.
Mr Trump has also introduced 25pc tariffs on steel and cars, which is particularly costly to Britain as cars are our largest single export to the US. UK car manufacturers, including brands such as Aston Martin and Jaguar Land Rover, sold £9bn worth of vehicles to the US last year.
By contrast, a larger share of the EU's exports are shielded by a carve-out for pharmaceutical exports. The tariff-free status of drugs means the effective rate paid by EU exporters is well below the 20pc headline level.
Vietnam and India similarly benefit from a carve-out for electronic goods, while Mr Trump has issued exemptions for goods arriving from Canada and Mexico that comply with the terms of the pre-existing United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).
Higher charges are imposed on products from British companies despite the fact that Mr Trump is deeply critical of the EU, which he has claimed was 'formed to screw the United States'. By contrast, he has praised Sir Keir Starmer's lobbying to try to secure a trade deal for the UK.
After the Prime Minister met with the president in February, Mr Trump said there was a good chance of a deal where 'tariffs wouldn't be necessary' and said Sir Keir had 'earned whatever the hell they pay him over there'.
Capital Economics' analysis underlines the importance of striking a trade deal with America to protect Britain's economy from the worst of Mr Trump's tariffs. British officials are racing to negotiate an agreement, with Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, meeting her counterpart Scott Bessent in Washington at the end of last month.
However, reports suggest the Trump administration has made Britain a 'second-order priority', with Asian nations such as South Korea given greater focus.
Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, on Friday said 'all options remain on the table' after the Government closed its consultation on the impact of US tariffs.
Mr Reynolds said: 'We are now in a new era for trade and the economy, and that means going further and faster to strengthen the UK's economy.
'While we analyse responses, this Government's priority will be to build on the strength of our relationship with the US and continue talks to find a resolution for UK businesses.'
Paul Dans, the architect of Project 2025, the Right-wing policy blueprint that is now considered to be the US president's play-book, said Britain should be able to strike a good deal with America.
Mr Dans, who served in the first Trump administration, said: 'Long-term, President Trump ultimately wants to get to a yes on deals and now is the time. Now is the time [for the UK] to make a good deal.
'I think that Britons have suffered a lot of the same fate that we have, and there should be some recognition of the shared experience. The deindustrialisation, the mass immigration, the disorder in society – we feel that on this side of the pond as well.'
Project 2025 was a 900-page document drawn up by the Right-wing Heritage Foundation that made radical policy recommendations such as abolishing the department of education.
Many of its ideas have been taken on by the president and several of its authors now serve in his administration, including Peter Navarro, Mr Trump's trade advisor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
5 minutes ago
- Reuters
JP Morgan maintains 2025 forecast for oil prices in low-to-mid $60s
June 12 (Reuters) - JP Morgan downplayed geopolitical concerns on Thursday and maintained its base case forecast for oil prices to stay in the low-to-mid $60s through 2025 and $60 in 2026, but said certain worst-case scenarios could send prices surging to double those levels. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the United States was moving personnel out of the Middle East because it "could be a dangerous place". He also said the U.S. would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Iran has said its nuclear activity is peaceful. Increased tension with Iran has raised the prospect of disruption to oil supplies, with both sides set to meet on Sunday. The geopolitical risk premium is already at least partially reflected in current oil prices, which are just under $70, trading about $4 higher than their estimated fair value of $66 for June, JP Morgan said in a Thursday note. However, the analysts drew attention to certain worst-case scenarios, where the impact on supply could potentially extend beyond a 2.1 million barrels per day reduction in Iranian oil exports. Attention is focused on the risk that a broader Middle East conflict could close the Strait of Hormuz, or provoke retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region. "Under this severe outcome, we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range," they said. Brent crude futures were trading near $68.76 per barrel on Thursday, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures were at $67.14 per barrel. If nuclear negotiations fail and conflict arises with the United States, Iran will strike American bases in the region, Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said on Wednesday, days ahead of a planned sixth round of Iran-U.S. nuclear talks. The U.N. nuclear watchdog's board of governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations on Thursday and Tehran announced counter-measures, as tensions rose in the Middle East.
Rhyl Journal
6 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Boeing shares tumble after Air India plane crash
The US-based airplane manufacturer, which has been blighted by safety issues in recent years, saw shares drop as much as 8%. A Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft bound for Gatwick airport, carrying 242 people including 53 British nationals, appeared to explode after crashing shortly after taking off from Ahmedabad Airport. Airline Air India said 169 passengers are Indian nationals, 53 are British, one is Canadian and seven are Portuguese. Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, director general of India's directorate of civil aviation, told the Associated Press the crash happened in the Meghani Nagar area at 1.38pm local time (9.08am BST). A Boeing spokesman said: 'We are aware of initial reports and are working to gather more information.' The first flight of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft involved in the crash was in December 2013. Air India confirms that flight AI171, from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, was involved in an accident today after take-off. The flight, which departed from Ahmedabad at 1338 hrs, was carrying 242 passengers and crew members on board the Boeing 787-8 aircraft. Of these, 169 are… — Air India (@airindia) June 12, 2025 It is the first crash involving a Boeing 787 aircraft, according to the Aviation Safety Network database. However, the fleet was reportedly grounded in 2013 after fires related to lithium-ion batteries in its electrical power system. It is understood that airline operators including British Airways, United Airways and Qatar Airways use the model. Boeing planes have been involved in other incidents in recent years such as the Lion Air crash in 2018 involving a Boeing 737 Max which killed 189 people. In 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, involving another 737 Max aircraft, crashed killing 157 people on board. The entire Boeing 737 Max fleet was grounded after the incidents.
Rhyl Journal
6 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Council tax bills set to rise at fastest rate for two decades, economist warns
Paul Johnson said that local government in England did 'perhaps a little bit better than it might have expected' out of the Chancellor's statement on Wednesday, but the 'sting in the tail' is the assumption that 'council tax bills will rise by 5% a year' as part of the funding. The core spending power of councils is set to increase by 2.6% a year from next year, and 'if English councils do choose 5% increases – and most almost certainly will – council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05', Mr Johnson said on Thursday. On Wednesday, Ms Reeves said that ministers will not be 'going above' the 5% annual increases in council tax. She told ITV: 'The previous government increased council tax by 5% a year, and we have stuck to that. We won't be going above that. 'That is the council tax policy that we inherited from the previous government, and that we will be continuing.' The biggest winner from Wednesday's statement was the NHS, which will see its budget rise by £29 billion per year in real terms. Ruth Curtice, the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, has said that Britain is turning into a 'National Health State'. Overnight, the think tank said Ms Reeves' announcements had followed a recent trend that saw increases for the NHS come at the expense of other public services. Ms Curtice said: 'Health accounted for 90% of the extra public service spending, continuing a trend that is seeing the British state morph into a National Health State, with half of public service spending set to be on health by the end of the decade.' Defence was another of Wednesday's winners, Ms Curtice said, receiving a significant increase in capital spending while other departments saw an overall £3.6 billion real-terms cut in investment. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) made similar arguments about 'substantial' investment in the NHS and defence coming at the expense of other departments, although Mr Johnson warned on Wednesday the money may not be enough. In his snap reaction to the review, Mr Johnson said: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up. 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' Ms Curtice added that low and middle-income families had also done well out of the spending review 'after two rounds of painful tax rises and welfare cuts', with the poorest fifth of families benefiting from an average of £1,700 in extra spending on schools, hospitals and the police. She warned that, without economic growth, another round of tax rises was likely to come in the autumn as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books. She said: 'The extra money in this spending review has already been accounted for in the last forecast. 'But a weaker economic outlook and the unfunded changes to winter fuel payments mean the Chancellor will likely need to look again at tax rises in the autumn.' Speaking after delivering her spending review, Ms Reeves insisted she would not have to raise taxes to cover her spending review. She told GB News: 'Every penny of this is funded through the tax increases and the changes to the fiscal rules that we set out last autumn.' Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described rising health spending as a 'conundrum', with a similar approach having been taken 'again and again' as she spoke at a business conference in central London on Thursday morning. In reference to a pro-Brexit campaign stunt, Mrs Badenoch said: 'I mean, who remembers the side of a red bus that said 'we're going to give the NHS £350 million more a week'? 'Many people don't know that we did that. We did do that, and yet, still we're not seeing the returns. 'We've put more and more money in, and we're getting less and less out.' The Government have not explained how and why the NHS will be better as a result of its spending plans, the Tory leader added, and claimed the public know 'we need to start talking about productivity reforms, public sector reforms'.
