Mailwatch(ed) Forum

In spite of JD Vance’s emollient tone today about how much The Donald loves the UK and how he might do a special trade deal with us instead of hitting us with ridiculous tariffs because of that, I’m not at all comfortable with our government grovelling to the orange cunt. I know, I know - Realpolitik and all that, but I’d be much happier if we concentrated on building alliances with the EU and Canada.

The EU are looking for a deal too, I would think, and probably don't see themselves as part of a united front with Canada. Before Trump kicked off they made an offer on lowering car tariffs and wouldn't be surprised if that was repeated. I think the reasons the US doesn't export many cars to the EU are more about the sort of cars they produce than tariffs.

Of course, that's why US car firms build different kind of cars in Europe for European roads. 70s DJs splashing out can always import a US car if they wish.

I wonder if Vance's sweet talking is motivated by a realisation that the US needs more allies than Orban and Netanyahu. The more the UK anchors itself to Trump, the more he can shake the UK down by reneging on deals. Any alliance with Trump over the EU and Canada would be a deal breaker for me, goodbye Labour.

And yet if Bloomberg and David Henig are to be believed the government are about to do on agriculture with the EU that will have Farage and Badenoch spitting blood.

I'm happy enough with the trade stuff, though I grant you that it does all feel ad hoc rather than strategic. Polling suggests that the public are happy with saying "We're focussing on Europe, thanks" but I wonder how deep that really goes. See also "the public have definitely changed their mind on Brexit, let's have another referendum".

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 7:30 pm Of course, that's why US car firms build different kind of cars in Europe for Euroean roads. 70s DJs splashing out can always import a US car if they wish.

Watching rather more old telly than a normal person, it's a surprise to see in many 60s and 70s TV programmes how, if someone wanted to look a bit flash or they were a bit dodgy, they always drove some imported Yank motor - be it a Mustang, Chevy or whatever.

Also if we sign a trade deal with the US what's to stop us signing a similar agreement with the EU?

Nothing whatsoever but the US seem to want it to be a mutually exclusive thing - "us or them".

Boiler wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 8:12 pm if someone wanted to look a bit flash or they were a bit dodgy, they always drove some imported Yank motor - be it a Mustang, Chevy or whatever.

Screams like a Bee Gee with his fingers stuck in a door

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 8:13 pm Also if we sign a trade deal with the US what's to stop us signing a similar agreement with the EU?

Deepening US trade relations beyond existing 'WTO with whistles on' terms may result in aligning to US rules and regulations that could exclude the UK from closer Single Market access. It's unlikely Congress would wish to go down this road especially in agricultural sectors. Even if Trump's word was worth much more than a bucket of spit his definition of a deal is winner takes all and the other schmuck loses, so what's the point?

Well for one thing they've already ruled out lowering food safety standards in any US Trade deal so what other rules would we sign up to?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/looser ... 025-04-13/

LONDON, April 13 (Reuters) - Britain will not relax its food safety standards as part of any deal to secure lower tariffs on its exports to the United States, business minister Jonathan Reynolds said on Sunday.
U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed 10% tariffs on most imports of British goods to the United States and a higher 25% rate on imports of cars, steel and aluminium.

Maybe ask Dan Hannan who has now forgotten he spent his career as an MEP arguing for the UK to become an EFTA type Single Market rule taker

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:36 pm Well for one thing they've already ruled out lowering food safety standards in any US Trade deal so what other rules would we sign up to?

American-style hate-speech without consequences, harassment of people using family-planning clincs - that sort of thing.

Sir Keir Starmer must embrace Donald Trump’s agenda by repealing hate speech laws in order to get a trade deal over the line, sources close to JD Vance have told The Independent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 33806.html

Yesterday's Grauniad carried a report about pressure being applied to schools and libraries for the removal of books deemed unsuitable.

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 11:40 pm Maybe ask Dan Hannan who has now forgotten he spent his career as an MEP arguing for the UK to become an EFTA type Single Market rule taker

What does "case by case" basis mean? Sounds like a recipe for Farage and Badenoch kicking off every five minutes about the "good old British sausage" or whatever. And for stuff to get stuck in customs because it's not clear whether this type of sausage is covered.

We seem to have gone seamlessly from "Labour's going to sell us out the US" to "Labour's not going to sell us out to the US, but it's still bad".

Best for Britain published something a while ago suggesting pretty big economic gains possible with a deal that didn't breach any of Labour's red lines (which were the same as Corbyn's in 2017, basically the only ones anyone's got a decent vote share on the back of). We're to believe now that Labour's refusing to take this easy economic win because what? It's scared of Dan Hannan? Labour's voters who might vote Reform are more of the "we've lost too much industry to Europe" sort, rather than "I'm hopping mad about the European Court".

Pretty shameless by Swinney here. As recently as last month, he was talking up the work the UK and Scottish governments were doing on securing the future of the "site", that is probably not as a refinery. Now because something in a completely different industry as been nationalized (in England), nationalisation is the be all and end all. Plaid are a bit disingenuous in the way they talk about Port Talbot (it had a private sector solution, unlike Scunthorpe, which may well see lots of job losses too) but those cases are much more directly comparable than Scunthorpe and Grangemouth.

Pretty shameless by Swinney here. As recently as last month, he was talking up the work the UK and Scottish governments were doing on securing the future of the "site", that is probably not as a refinery. Now because something in a completely different industry as been nationalized (in England), nationalisation is the be all and end all. Plaid are a bit disingenuous in the way they talk about Port Talbot (it had a private sector solution, unlike Scunthorpe, which may well see lots of job losses too) but those cases are much more directly comparable than Scunthorpe and Grangemouth.

Interesting proposal though don't quote me on the law. However, I am knowledgeable enough to spot the sly "illegal migrants" in the BBC story.

"Forced to pay tax" means "they declared it in their tax returns and paid tax on it".

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 4:55 pm We seem to have gone seamlessly from "Labour's going to sell us out the US" to "Labour's not going to sell us out to the US, but it's still bad".

Best for Britain published something a while ago suggesting pretty big economic gains possible with a deal that didn't breach any of Labour's red lines (which were the same as Corbyn's in 2017, basically the only ones anyone's got a decent vote share on the back of). We're to believe now that Labour's refusing to take this easy economic win because what? It's scared of Dan Hannan? Labour's voters who might vote Reform are more of the "we've lost too much industry to Europe" sort, rather than "I'm hopping mad about the European Court".

There's a whole host of people on Bluesky who have built profiles bashing Labour on Brexit so they're going to pivot and attack Labour over this.