Trump to cut tariffs on British cars ‘very soon', minister suggests
Donald Trump is set to cut tariffs on British cars within days, the Business Secretary has suggested.
Jonathan Reynolds said he is 'very hopeful' that the carve out agreed as part of the UK's new trade deal with the US will be implemented by the end of the week. He said an update was expected 'very soon'.
As part of the trade deal announced last month, the UK secured cuts to US tariffs on British cars from 25pc to 10pc for an agreed quota of 100,000 vehicles.
Mr Reynolds also said Britain is 'ready to go' on its side of the bargain, which will involve slashing tariffs on US beef and ethanol imports which are used to make biofuels.
While he has agreed a carve out for the UK, Mr Trump said on Thursday that he might increase tariffs on car imports more generally in the 'not too distant future'.
US auto shares slumped shortly after his remarks, with shares in Ford down 1.6pc and those for General Motors sliding 1.5pc.
The UK will be spared completely from levies on steel and aluminium, which rose to 25pc after Mr Trump kicked off his trade war in February.
At the time, Sir Keir Starmer hailed the ' historic deal ', claiming it would 'protect thousands of British jobs in key sectors including car manufacturing and steel'.
But it has still not been implemented more than a month later, with both Washington and London yet to take the necessary steps to put the plans into action.
Speaking at a lunch for Westminster journalists on Thursday, Mr Reynolds said he was 'hopeful' that the first changes would be in place by the end of the week.
It comes after the Business Secretary pushed for progress on the deal in talks with his US counterpart, Howard Lutnick, in Downing Street on Tuesday.
Asked when British carmakers could expect tariffs to be cut, Mr Reynolds said: 'Very soon.'
He added: 'Secretary Lutnik and I, with the Prime Minister, talked specifically about the institution of the automotive tariff reduction for the quota, which is part of our deal. And I am hoping to be able to update you all on that very soon.'
Pressed on whether the changes could be in place by the end of the week, and if Sir Keir would raise the issue with Mr Trump at the upcoming G7 summit in Canada, he said: 'I'm very hopeful. It was a specific area of conversation on Tuesday in that bilateral meeting.
'We are ready to go on our side. In terms of the steps I need to take, I will inform the House with a written ministerial statement and lay the statutory instruments for the reciprocal part of that deal, which is obviously about beef and ethanol for us on this side.
'So we're ready to go, and as soon as the president and the White House on their side are able to, we will implement that part of the deal.'
Mr Reynolds also defended the UK's nuclear submarine deal with the US and Australia after the Pentagon launched a review of the pact.
It emerged on Wednesday that the US was considering ending the Aukus agreement, signed to great fanfare in 2021, in a potential blow to a security alliance between the three countries.
Asked if he had concerns about the future of the deal, Mr Reynolds said: 'I would have a lot of confidence in anyone looking at the merits of that agreement and saying that is an incredibly strong and important agreement for the future.
'So if US colleagues want to look at it, ok, that's their right to do so. I think it is an incredibly compelling and strong agreement.'
Meanwhile, Mr Reynolds revealed that he had been cleared by the solicitors' regulator over claims he lied about his legal career.
The watchdog, which protects the public from bogus lawyers, launched an investigation into the Business Secretary earlier this year after it emerged he repeatedly described himself as a solicitor despite never qualifying.
Asked for an update on the probe, Mr Reynolds said: 'They came back shortly after that media period to say look, always be careful to be accurate, but there's no misleading here, and there's nothing else to look into.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
The longest-serving legislative leader in US history will be sentenced on corruption charges
Michael Madigan's stunning political collapse will culminate Friday when the longest-serving legislative leader in U.S. history is sentenced on federal bribery, conspiracy and wire fraud convictions tied to a scheme to push legislation in exchange for jobs and contracts for his associates. The former Illinois House speaker was convicted in February on 10 of 23 counts in a remarkable corruption trial that lasted four months. The case churned through 60 witnesses and mountains of documents, photographs and taped conversations. Madigan was in court Friday afternoon before U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey, who will determine his sentence. Federal prosecutors are seeking a 12 1/2-year prison term. Madigan's attorneys are seeking probation, contending the government's sentence would 'condemn an 83-year-old man to die behind bars for crimes that enriched him not one penny.' During a legislative career that spanned a half-century, Madigan served nearly four decades as speaker, the longest on record for a U.S. legislator. Combined with more than 20 years as chairperson of the Illinois Democratic Party, he set much of the state's political agenda while handpicking candidates for political office. More often than not, he also controlled political mapmaking, drawing lines to favor his party. Meanwhile, prosecutors said, the Chicago Democrat built a private legal career that allowed him to amass a net worth of $40 million. Madigan was convicted on 10 counts of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud and other charges for ensuring approval of legislation favorable to utility giant ComEd in exchange for kickbacks and jobs and contracts for loyalists, including a Chicago alderman seeking a paid job on a state board after retiring from government. The jury deadlocked on six counts, including an overarching racketeering conspiracy charge, and acquitted him on seven others. 'Madigan's criminal activity spanned nearly a decade and was particularly egregious because it involved efforts to enrich himself — both by maintaining his political power by securing do-nothing jobs for his political allies and by attempting to line his own pockets with legal business,' prosecutors wrote in a court filing. 'In so doing, Madigan served his own personal interests and not the interests of Illinoisans.' Defense lawyers called the government's recommended sentence 'draconian' and, given Madigan's age, a life sentence. They asked Blakey to consider the totality of Madigan's life and work and the need to care for his wife in requesting a sentence of five years' probation, with one year of home confinement, a requirement to perform community service and a 'reasonable fine.' In a video submitted to the court, Madigan's wife, Shirley, asks for a sentence of probation, explaining that Madigan is her caregiver and she would have to seek outside help if he is imprisoned. And, she says, 'I'm a part of him.' 'There's some days I keep him going,' Shirley Madigan says on the video. 'He keeps me going sometimes, too, but I think that the impact that I have on him has been much, much larger.' The court received more than 200 letters of support for Madigan, many from constituents, friends, leaders of nonprofits and other organizations that interact with the state. Some noted asking him for help just once. Most lauded him for dedication, integrity or a personal touch. 'Mike Madigan is a good man who has selflessly done an exceptional amount of good for others,' his lawyers wrote in a separate filing. 'He is widely respected for his dedication to honesty and integrity.' Tried alongside Madigan was his former legislative colleague and longtime confidant, Michael McClain. The jury couldn't reach a decision on any of the six counts against McClain. He was convicted, though, in a separate trial over the ComEd conspiracy last year.
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids.
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
The BBC World Service debate: Is Donald Trump making the world safer or more dangerous?
Update: Date: 18:45 BST Title: The BBC World Service debate: Is Donald Trump making the world safer or more dangerous? Content: Lyse DoucetChief international correspondent Hello and welcome to the BBC World Service debate, live from the Radio Theatre in Broadcasting House in London. Events are moving quickly. We're recording our discussion as tensions escalate sharply in the Middle East and beyond after Israel attacked Iran, and Tehran retaliated. President Trump promised to be a peacemaker - can he end this confrontation? He also boasted he would end the wars in Ukraine, as well as Gaza. He has put peace talks on the table in many places, and pushed his allies in many regions to take more responsibility for their own security. But his critics say his approach to diplomacy is reckless and chaotic, and so far the dealmaker in chief has not delivered a deal. Is Donald Trump making the world safer or more dangerous? Lyse will be joined by a panel of guests to discuss the escalating tensions in the Middle East, and the rapidly changing international landscape during President Trump's second presidency. Watch the debate live at the top of this page from 19:00 BST (18:00 GMT).
