Browsing: Economy

The tirade was astonishing. On Wednesday afternoon the world watched as the leader of its most powerful nation accused friends and foes alike of having “looted, pillaged, raped, plundered”, and simultaneously waved a bogus list of tariff imbalances. The playground paranoia was cringeworthy. What on earth was going on?The answer can only be that Donald Trump is America’s elected president for the next four years. He says he wants to end the military conflicts the US has fought or sponsored round the globe for a quarter of a century. We are waiting for that. Meanwhile, he is waging an economic war on world trade, a response that his biographer and ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz, blames on his childhood: “a life spent feeling like a victim … any time he does not totally dominate he feels ripped off”.The immediate question is how Britain should respond. At this moment British and US trade negotiators, some presumably crippled with embarrassment, have been struggling to reach a bilateral trade agreement of sorts. Rumours are that it was near completion though Trump had yet to agree. Since Trump has already placed Britain among the countries to be least hit by the tariffs, retaliation at this point makes no sense. Britain would be acting outside the EU and it would have minimal impact.History is never the point in diplomacy, but in tariffs it offers lessons. What Trump calls reciprocity is nothing of the sort. It is competition. The countries he is hitting hardest are in China’s sphere of interest in south-east Asia. These are doing to the US exactly what America did to Europe at the end of the 19th century, working feverishly to undercut its competitor on costs. This plunged 1890s Britain into a deep and lasting agricultural depression. Britain retaliated with tariffs dressed up as imperial preference.Similar devastation followed President Herbert Hoover’s notorious Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Seeking to answer the Wall Street crash, he imposed tariffs on imports that ran from about 20% to as high as 60%. The resulting bout of retaliation from European and other nations ensured that a downturn became a deep global depression. Is there no historian in the White House – or at least in the capitals of Europe? The lesson of Smoot-Hawley is don’t initiate, but above all, don’t retaliate.View image in fullscreenAs for Trump’s claims of the US being “pillaged”, he may have factored into his balance sheet the activities of his favourite pirates, those of America’s digital empire. Inadequately regulated and all but free of tax, they are widely accused of spreading social and psychological devastation among the world’s young people. Should they not be tariffed? That is without even starting on the service sector, inclusion of which would massively distort Trump’s concept of reciprocity.Students of classical economics are taught that Adam Smith was right. Free trade led to increased specialisation and market competition. It was tough but fair, and was to the advantage of all. The end of the postwar Bretton Woods system in the 1970s ushered in a world of ever freer trade, and eventual globalisation. The world’s increasing reliance on the dollar led to a recklessness that tottered then recovered in 2008. Ever freer trade remains a bulwark of world prosperity.What Trump is doing has long been the left’s answer to globalisation. It asserts that the benefits of freer trade flowed to the rich, while the poor needed protection from competition, fair or unfair. This is Trumpism. He is defending his domestic industries against what he understandably sees as an existential menace, particularly from south-east Asia. He is making his consumers pay more for their goods, supposedly repaying them with lower taxes. It did not rescue them in the 1930s.World trade has become a robust phenomenon. Since 2022 it has adjusted with relative ease to Nato’s sanctions against Russia and its supporting coalition. The chief beneficiaries of sanctions have been the so-called Bric nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China), who grow in strength by the year. Meanwhile a huge energy cost has been borne by Europe, with no change whatsoever in Russia’s policy in Ukraine. But the truth is that trade does not do what it is told by governments. It finds ways of dodging regulatory obstacles and defying economic forecasters. Trump might partially mitigate this week’s damage by ending sanctions forthwith.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhat happens next is clearly open to doubt. Pessimists assume that in some degree Trump’s tariff regime will stay. That did not happen after Trump 1.0. There is every sign that he is mercurial, and this may even prove to have been peak Trump. The “economic emergency” powers under which he is operating are shaky and subject to legal challenge. His behaviour has so damaged America’s government and reputation – slashing his civil service, sacking aid workers against the backdrop of the Myanmar disaster, devastating the stock market – that opposition from Washington to Wall Street must steadily emerge. Congress will face its electors in under two years, and party leaders must choose candidates for the succession in little over three. Trump tried to defy the constitution in 2021. He will not do so again.As for Britain, everything says play it long. Yes, there is a temporary advantage in London being free to negotiate with the US separately from Europe. Something might come of it. But the effect can only be to weaken Europe’s negotiating strength as a whole.The best hope is that this is not another 1930s or 1890s, but a rush of American blood to the head that will pass. Trump will have reduced the world’s trade with the US and consequently strengthened other countries’ links with each other. Meanwhile, businesses everywhere will have had an almighty shock. They will have been forced to pause and ponder their future. That, at least, is a silver lining. But for now, history screams one message: don’t retaliate, always negotiate.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

More than 1m cars too big to fit in parking spaces are being sold in the UK each year, and numbers are growing, research has found.A trend for cars bigger than the average urban parking space means new vehicles are outgrowing towns and cities.Researchers at the campaign network Clean Cities found that, since 2021, 4.6m cars have been sold in the UK that are bigger than a typical urban car parking space.Larger cars are more deadly in crashes than smaller ones, as they weigh more and have tall front ends that trap victims beneath them instead of knocking them to the side. They also pump more toxic gases into the air.Oliver Lord, the UK head of Clean Cities, said: “Cars are getting bigger every year – while our streets are not. We need carmakers to prioritise normal-sized cars that can be parked more easily and are less dangerous to people walking around. It’s only fair if you want to buy a massive SUV [sports utility vehicle] that you should expect to pay more for the space it takes up.”Large SUVs, which are either more than 1.8 metres wide or 4.8 metres long, are becoming more popular despite being too big for most parking spaces, causing more potholes and posing more of a danger to the public. In 2024, a record 1,213,385 cars wider than 1.8 metres were sold.Some cities are clamping down on cars that take up too much space. Paris has introduced specific parking charges for SUVs, which mean drivers paying triple the amount of those driving regular cars. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has indicated his support for such schemes.The Clean Cities campaigners are also calling for more charges on SUVs to reflect the space they take up and the damage to roads and environments they cause.Harriet Edwards, a parent from Sutton, said: “It’s not just the added stress of not being able to find somewhere to park, it’s the sense that if I’m involved in a collision with one of these giant SUVs, that me and my family are far more likely to be seriously hurt or killed. If you cause more danger, create more potholes and take up more parking space, it’s only fair that you pay a little bit more.”The Green party peer Jenny Jones last week launched a cross-party anti-SUV alliance in the House of Lords. She said: “Sales of SUVs have leapt up in the last two decades, yet many urban streets and car parking bays are simply too small to accommodate the increasing girth of these vehicles.“I like what Paris has done to discourage their use, by charging the largest cars as much as three times more to park. In the UK, Bath and Islington councils have introduced similar measures. The government should encourage other councils to replicate these efforts. SUVs pollute and are often owned and driven by wealthier citizens at the expense of those in less wealthy areas. They feel safer to drive, but are much less safe for any pedestrians and cyclists they collide with.”

Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs will upend global trade, adding costs and delays to businesses around the world and threatening a recession.The Guardian spoke to eight businesses about the impact.Italy: pecorino cheesemakerOn the Italian island of Sardinia, makers of pecorino, the hard, salty sheep’s milk cheese, were digesting news of Trump’s tariffs. Up to 70% of their product is exported to the US.“We need to understand it better and wait and see if they really mean 20%, but obviously it has created some imbalance,” says Salvatore Pala, president of OP Unione Pastori, an association representing the island’s sheep and goat farmers.“We should see in the next 10 days how these new taxes, let’s call them that, will affect new orders and prices, which is the thing that worries us the most.”View image in fullscreenPecorino has been made in Sardinia for centuries, contributing to the myriad Italian food delicacies in high demand around the world. Italy’s biggest food and drink orders in the US are wine, followed by olive oil, pasta and cheese, according to figures from Cia, the Italian farmers’ confederation.“Sardinia is not a rich island, it lives in particular off agriculture and tourism,” Pala adds. “But I am not an alarmist by nature – we need to work together, at the Italian and European level, to try to ensure that this is managed and does not threaten our industry. All farmers have the same issues. This is a very delicate moment and needs to be managed well.”As told to Angela GiuffridaIreland: whiskey makerThe EU and the US enjoyed a deal with zero tariffs on imports of whiskey and bourbon until Trump’s tariff blow.Clonakilty Whiskey sells its bottles for between $30 (£23) and $50 depending on the edition, prices that would rise to $36 to $60​ a bottle under the 20% tariffs being imposed on the EU. The company’s founder, Michael Scully, hopes a post-Brexit launch in the UK could make up for harm to his US market.“The tariffs are disappointing and bad for business. Outside the actual tariffs themselves, the uncertainty it creates will divert the increased investment we had allocated to the US market over the medium term,” he said.“The US market is important to us, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. We’ve invested a lot of time, effort, and money into the US market over the last six years, so it is unfortunate. There are no winners in this.“Currently 15% to 20% of our sales are to the US and while we are getting a very good response to our product, it’s already become a very expensive and difficult market to play in. That said, as a company we do intend to stay in the US, but the uncertainty that has been created by tariffs will mean that extra investment allocation over the medium term will be diverted to other markets.View image in fullscreen“While it takes nine to 12 months to open a new market, whiskey is a long-term game, and we are confident that we can pivot easily.“Our strategy has always been to become a recognised premium Irish whiskey brand in all the major whiskey-drinking nations of the world, so opening new markets is what we have been doing for quite a while.“In addition to growing our northern European base, we are targeting growth across the Asian market. We already sell in Japan and South Korea and are in discussions with distributors in China and Hong Kong. We also see Australia as a market with opportunity, given the connections with the large Irish diaspora, as is Nigeria.“This month we are excited to launch our brand in the UK, which had been delayed because of Brexit. Given the similar culture and closeness of the two nations, I see no reason why this market cannot fully replace any losses we experience in the US because of tariffs.”As told to Lisa O’CarrollUK: Savile Row tailorBrian Lishak, co-founder of the tailor Richard Anderson, says: “It is a relief, I guess. We have done much better perhaps than we anticipated. I hope that with negotiation we can perhaps improve on the 10%.“The US market is strong for us, it is a market we have really explored and developed since we opened 23 years ago.“From our point of view, the tariffs will affect shipments going out to the US, but that is all done by US customs dealing with our customers. We will inform them that the item is subject to 10% duty imposed by US customs on entry.View image in fullscreen“I really believe that the relationship we have with our customers is not going to be very hurt, I don’t think it will have a huge impact. We have had these duties in the past, as our products used to carry a duty of 21% and we managed, and I am sure we will do so this time.“Obviously it is a shame but it will have to be dealt with, and I think it won’t have too adverse an effect on our trade.”As told to Joanna PartridgeAustralia: cattle and lamb farmerJohn Lowe, a managing partner of beef cattle and lamb farm business JF & ML Lowe, says: “I’m a long-term multigenerational farmer. The family’s been doing it for the best part of 200 years in Australia. Cattle would be probably 60% of our operation and 25% to 30% of our beef would be of the grade that could go to the US.“A 10% tariff across the board for Australia was probably the best of a bad situation. We did better than some other countries and some other industries.“I’d be much happier if this hadn’t happened. The surplus cows that we sell may get a little bit less money at this stage. The market will tighten a bit.“But being a farmer, you’ve got to be optimistic to some degree, otherwise you wouldn’t be in the game. In America, they haven’t got enough beef domestically to feed their population. They’ve still got to get supplies of beef from somewhere.View image in fullscreen“We will keep on trying to diversify our markets. America is the prime grinding beef market but it’s certainly not the only place where we could send that sort of product. We won’t replace the whole lot, but if we can just adjust the mix a little bit, it may be helpful.“It’s the uncertainty which is the really hard thing to plan for. It’s a bit like musical chairs: no one wants to be left standing when the music stops – or have a couple hundred containers of beef on the water.“We probably will be careful about making long-term financial decisions until we’ve got a better view of where things are heading. We’ll see how we muddle along.”As told to Luca Ittimaniskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionChina: fitness equipment makerWayne Lee, chief executive of Powertec, a global fitness equipment distributor that manufactures in China, says: “If you’re asking if I know what I’m going to be paying on my three containers arriving from China, I don’t. Neither do our customs brokers. We asked right after the announcement: ‘What’s our duty? So that we can start planning.’ And they’re like: ‘We have no idea.’“Powertec was founded as a family business in 1997. We manufacture fitness equipment in Qingdao, a city in eastern China, and ship it globally. About 90% goes to the US.“We’ve been dealing with tariffs since 2018. We did look at manufacturing onshore in the US, in southern states like Tennessee and Alabama. But the incentives are minimal. With increased raw material and labour costs, we calculated that our outgoings would be 60-70% higher. It wasn’t feasible.View image in fullscreen“Since November, we’ve been looking at contingencies, hoarding cash, looking at costs. We employ 25 people, mostly in the US, with a couple in China. We are going to have a hard conversation with them and might need to be creative with their compensation.“I do understand what Trump is trying to do. If it was planned out, if we’d been given a year or two to get to this point, I think a lot of companies would probably get on board with it. I just think it hasn’t been done in the best way.”As told to Amy HawkinsIndia: shrimp farmerNews of Trump’s 26% tariffs on Indian exports sent shock waves through India’s seafood industry. Shrimp is one of India’s biggest agricultural exports and the US is one of the biggest markets for Indian shrimp, accounting for about 44% of all exports, with the market to almost $3bn in recent years.Previously levies on Indian shrimp exports to the US were about 8%. Pawan Kumar, owner of Sprint Exports Private Ltd, one of India’s biggest seafood companies whose largest market is in the US, says the new tariffs were devastating for the Indian shrimp industry and the impact would be “severe” and create “major financial stress”.“The US is the most important market for India’s shrimp industry,” he says. “But now Indian exports will have tariffs of 26%, while other competing countries such as Ecuador will have 10%. This gives a huge advantage to Ecuador and means they will probably replace India as the largest supplier of shrimps to the US market.”View image in fullscreenKumar, who is also president of the Seafood Exporters Association of India, says the immediacy of the plan meant that 2,000 containers of Indian seafood currently in transit would now face tariffs which would have to be borne by the exporters such as himself, at an estimated total cost of 6bn rupees (£54m).He says the brunt would also be borne by the shrimp farmers, as the “uncertainty over the impact of these tariffs on profit margins means that fewer orders will be placed”. Kumar called upon the Indian government to “intervene urgently” to negotiate a deal with the US to exempt seafood from the tariffs, and prevent “all-round distress”.As told to Hannah Ellis-PetersenMexico: vegetable farmerMexican businesses breathed a sigh of relief when Trump introduced a 10% baseline tariff on most countries – but Mexico was spared.“It was a surprise,” says Mario Haroldo Robles, the director of the Commission for the Research and Defence of Vegetables in Sinaloa, a state notorious for cartel violence but also a major agricultural exporter to the US. “During winter, we supply half of all tomatoes in the US market,” Robles says.“It was a relief,” says a farmer who ships tomatoes and bell peppers from Sinaloa to the US. Like many in the region, he is wary of Trump and asks to remain anonymous.“Now we’re in a privileged position,” says Robles, adding that while other Latin American countries such as Colombia and Peru that export avocados and other vegetables to the US now face a 10% levy, Mexico remains exempt thanks to its free trade agreement with the US and Canada. “It now gives us a competitive advantage,” he says.View image in fullscreenBut the real victory is the increased certainty for Mexican farmers. “This allows us to reinvest, determine our commercial strategy, choose our markets and other important business decisions,” Robles says. He admits that “we still don’t know about the future”, but insists that “the Mexican vegetable industry will not shut down” – US consumers rely on its produce, particularly in winter.Robles applauds the Mexican government’s efforts to curb illegal migration and drug trafficking, which he says helped the country avoid tariffs, but “is also a concern for us here in Mexico”.As told to Mie Hoejris DahlUK: car parts makerMitchell Barnes runs Ryse 3D, a Midlands-based manufacturer of automotive parts, which sends 30% of its volumes to the US for use in hypercars.“Tariffs are never a good thing in my opinion and will probably cause us to work with our customers across the pond to share some of the burden … probably a 50/50 split,” he says.“We are passionate about being a UK technology business that is disrupting the status quo and that will never change. However, it has accelerated my thinking, and indeed desire, to become a global company and set down additional roots in the US as soon as we can.View image in fullscreen“This was always going to be part of our long-term plan, but Trump’s tariffs have probably brought it forward by 18 months as it may give us a way of navigating the additional costs.“In the short term, we’ll continue to innovate processes to become more efficient and explore new technology that can deliver increased competitiveness.“Going forward, what do we want from our government? Put simply, a trade deal and Asap please, Keir Starmer!“I don’t agree with the US president’s approach, but there is little doubt he is trying to feed his domestic economy while our own prime minister starves growth in his own with ridiculous recent tax rises that were already going to cause damage before these tariffs hit.”As told to Richard Partington

A leading animal rights charity has launched a campaign calling for Gail’s Bakery to drop its surcharge on plant-based milks, claiming it “unfairly discriminates” against customers with dairy intolerances or those trying to make more ethical choices.Gail’s, a chain that is expanding rapidly in Britain, charges 40p to 60p extra if customers want oat or soya milk in their coffee or tea.With at least one in three Britons now drinking plant-based milks, other high-street coffee chains tend to offer one – soya – for free, though other dairy-free alternatives such as oat, almond and coconut milk often still come at a cost.Peta has called for Gail’s to drop its extra charge. Dawn Carr, the charity’s vice-president of vegan projects, told the Guardian: “Gail’s is milking customers who care about animals and the planet by offering a discount on reusable cups but still charging extra for plant milk.“Dairy milk is an environmental disaster, cruel to cows, and bad for human health. We’re calling on [Gail’s] to ditch the upcharge and encourage all conscious coffee drinkers to join Peta’s campaign.”Last month, Sir Paul McCartney wrote to the US chain Peet’s Coffee asking it to drop its extra charge for non-dairy milk. Within days, Peet’s climbed down.The former Beatle, who has been a vegetarian since 1975, wrote at the time: “It recently came to my attention that Peet’s has an extra charge for plant-based milks as opposed to cow’s milk.“I must say this surprised me, as I understand that your company is committed to reducing methane emissions and water waste, yet cow’s milk significantly contributes to them.”Pret a Manger stopped charging extra for plant-based milks such as oat, almond, soya and rice-coconut in the UK in 2020 after calls from animal rights advocates. Starbucks dropped its vegan milk surcharge in the UK in 2022. Leon and Joe and the Juice do not charge extra for any standard dairy-free milk alternatives.Costa Coffee and Caffe Nero do not charge for soya milk, but oat and coconut milk are an additional 45p at both. Costa also has an “ultimate blend” plant-based milk alternative at some stores for 35p. Peta has also renewed its calls for these extra charges to be dropped.Campaigners and animal rights advocates have long said these extra costs discriminate against people searching for dairy-free alternatives, with some claiming it amounts to a “tax” that should instead be applied to dairy because of its cost to the animals and the environment. But critics have said that almond milk uses large quantities of water in its production.Dale Vince, a green energy industrialist and ambassador for the charity Veganuary, said the charges were an example of “premium pricing” for plant-based foods, which tend overall to have a lower environmental impact. “This is a rip-off, plain and simple – part of the premium pricing of plant-based foods, which by their very nature cost less,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCarr added: “It’s true that almond milk uses more water to produce than oat milk, but the amount pales compared to that needed to make dairy milk. Slurry run-off from dairy factory farm manure and urine pollutes waterways, methane damages the ozone layer, and transport and slaughter of cows is extremely energy-intensive.“If anything, businesses should charge more for dairy to better reflect the true cost to the animals and the planet. But they certainly need to eliminate the unfair and damaging upcharge on vegan milks.”Toni Vernelli, Veganuary’s head of communications, said: “The cost of many plant milks has come down dramatically in recent years, so many of the surcharges – which range from 25p to 50p – are out of proportion to the extra expense the vendor incurs.”Gail’s declined to comment. Last year the chain, which has been described as a “political bellwether” for middle-class Britain, faced controversy over its expansion plans amid fears it would push out independent coffee houses. Its first outlet opened in Hampstead, north-west London, in 2005 and there are now about 170 branches in the UK.

Trade tariffs imposed on tiny Australian territories that are either uninhabited or claim to have no trading relationship with the US appear to have been calculated based on erroneous trade data.The data relates, at least in part, to shipments mislabelled as coming from remote Norfolk Island, or Heard Island and McDonald Islands, instead of their correct countries of origin, the Guardian can reveal.Among the erroneously labelled shipments over the past five years from the island territories are shipments of aquarium systems, Timberland boots, wine and parts for a recycling plant.According to an analysis of US import data and shipping records, multiple shipments of goods were classified as having originated from Norfolk Island or Heard and McDonald islands when neither the company address, nor the port of departure for the shipment, nor the destination port were located in those territories.In some cases involving Norfolk Island, which is 1,600km north-east of Sydney and has a population of 2,188, the confusion appears to have resulted from the fact that the company’s address or port of departure is Norfolk, UK, or the destination is Norfolk, Virginia in the US, or a company’s registered address in New Hampshire (NH) has been listed instead as Norfolk Island (NI).Norfolk Island was this week hit with a 29% tariff on its goods – 19 percentage points higher than the rest of Australia – despite claiming to have no export relationship with the US.The decision has perplexed the Australian government, with Australia’s prime minister saying it was evidence “nowhere was safe” from Trump’s tariffs. The country’s trade minister, Don Farrell, said it was “clearly a mistake”.George Plant, the administrator of Norfolk Island, told the Guardian on Thursday: “There are no known exports from Norfolk Island to the United States.”But according to US government data, presented by the Observatory of Economic Complexity, Norfolk Island exported US$655,000 (A$1.04m) worth of goods to the US in 2023, with its main export being US$413,000 (A$658,000) worth of leather footwear.There is one large shoe shop on Norfolk Island, Franks Shoes. Its manager said in an email to the Guardian: “We are a shoe shop selling shoes to the tourists that visit the island and do not export shoes to the US or have any business with the US.”The Guardian has identified two bills of lading – records of cargo shipments – for shipments each containing 3,714 black Timberland men’s ankle boots that set sail from South Riding port in the Bahamas for Miami, Florida, in December 2023. The shipments were worth a combined total of US$315,000 (A$498,000).The bills of lading list “Norfolk Island” as the country of origin and the address of the shipper as Timberland, 200 Domain Drive, Stratham 03885-2575, Norfolk Island.Timberland’s corporate office address is listed as 200 Domain Drive, Stratham, New Hampshire on its LinkedIn page.A spokesperson for Timberland shoes said: “We are in a quiet period and have no comment.”Other bills of lading that appear to have erroneously listed Norfolk Island as the country of origin include several from an aquarium and fountain company, OASE, which sent shipments from Norfolk in the UK to the US, and steel equipment sent from Novum Structures in Norfolk, UK, to the US.Novum Structure’s address is listed on one bill of lading as 14 Hopper Way, Diss Business Park, Diss, Norfolk Island, instead of Norfolk in the UK, which is its EU headquarters, according to Novum’s website.OASE and Novum were contacted for comment. The Guardian is not alleging that any of the companies are responsible for the errors in the paperwork.The US Census Bureau, the agency responsible for collating US trade statistics, acknowledges in its guide to trade statistics that such reporting errors can occur and can “significantly impact detailed commodity statistics”.The shipping databases that the Guardian used to check bill of lading information appear to rely on documents released by US customs under freedom of information requests, so it is not clear when in the process errors were made – during the exporting and shipping process or during the data collection process.The errors in the shipping records appear to have flowed through to US census and trade data used as the basis for calculating tariffs.Farrell told the ABC on Friday that the US’s 29% tariff imposed on Norfolk Island was “clearly a mistake” as Norfolk Island was part of Australia and so should be subject to the same tariff as the rest of the country. He said the Australian government would raise the issue with the US administration.“It’s an indication that this was a rushed process,” he said. “The trade system that America has until yesterday been working on had been built up since the second world war. In the space of four weeks, the American president has upended that process. So I think it was inevitable that mistakes would be made and particularly including Norfolk Island as [a] 29% tariff.”Journalists and economists have figured out the method used by the Trump administration to calculate the tariffs placed on other countries and territories.It is a simple formula which produces a tariff percentage based on the country’s trade deficit with the US in 2024. The Guardian has confirmed that this formula produces the 29% figure using US trade data for Norfolk Island.Heard Island and McDonald Islands – an uninhabited group of islands covered in glaciers near Antarctica, which is also an “external territory” of Australia – was also named in the White House’s list of “countries” hit by tariffs, with a 10% tariff placed on it.The territory does have a fishery but no buildings or human habitation. Despite this, according to export data from the World Bank, the US imported US$1.4m (A$2.23m) of products from Heard Island and McDonald Islands in 2022, nearly all of which was “machinery and electrical” imports.The Guardian has identified multiple bills of lading that suggest exports originated from the remote islands but are largely steel or plastic imports from Europe to the US. The paperwork lists the shipper’s address as being in the Heard Island and McDonald Islands rather than Germany or Austria, however.One bill of lading, from September 2024, relates to parts for a PET recycling plant, shipped from Starlinger Co in Vienna to Oakland California, which lists the address of Starlinger as being in “Vienna, Heard Island and McDonald Islands”. Starlinger Co was contacted for comment.Jared Mondschein, director of research at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, said of the rushed development of the tariff policy: “It doesn’t surprise me that because of the lack of conventional interagency thinking on this, that there were some errors that were not caught.“If you input the wrong data in, then you’re going to get the wrong data out.“And I think in this instance, if there are errors in the shipping records, which, you know, they’re ultimately humans and these things happen, then there’s going to be mistakes.”The trade data issue may also be responsible for other remote areas being targeted with tariffs. The Arctic island of Jan Mayen and the Svalbard archipelago were hit with a 10% trade tariff – again despite local reporting suggesting few people lived there and there was very little in the way of exports.Other territories appear to be in a similar situation, with bills of lading for shipments from Indian suppliers being mislabelled as coming from “British Indian Ocean Territory”, a remote external territory of the UK with few inhabitants.Tokelau, a territory of New Zealand in the southern Pacific Ocean, was also targeted with tariffs, and again some shipments have been mislabelled as the suppliers originating from the island, such as a shipment of pergola parts from Turkey.The White House was contacted for comment.

Cross-Channel train services serving new destinations will be cheaper to run under a scheme to grow international rail travel from the UK.London St Pancras Highspeed (LSPH), which owns and operates the railway and stations from the capital to the Channel tunnel, said it would slash charges for operators planning new routes.Eurostar is the sole existing operator between the UK and Europe, with regular direct trains reaching only Paris and Brussels, as engineering work affects the Amsterdam route until May.LSPH, formerly known as HS1 Ltd, said the “significant financial incentives” would lower costs for any and all additional international services, but with particular benefits for those calling at different stations or introducing new trains.It said the track between St Pancras International and the Channel tunnel was effectively half-empty, with only 50% of potential train paths used.LSPH will also discount certain charges for intermediate stations – hoping to attract services back to the Kent stops of Ebbsfleet and Ashford abandoned by Eurostar.While hopes for further international rail services through the tunnel have been raised and dashed before, the chief executive of LSPH, Robert Sinclair, said the growth of high-speed rail in Europe, increasing passenger demand and the removal of impediments to new entrants were now aligning.Sinclair said the incentive scheme, due to take effect from the end of May, was a “groundbreaking proposal”.He said: “We are enabling operators to expand their services, increase the network of destinations they serve and invest in new rolling stock. Our ambition is to make rail the preferred mode of travel to Europe, and we know that high-speed rail can reduce carbon emissions by up to 96% compared with flying.”Sinclair said there was opportunity for growth on existing routes, as people were hoping to connect onwards in Paris or Brussels, adding that there was “significant generational demand” from younger people: “Growth will come our way more than aviation.”The scheme will cut up to 50% off certain charges paid by operators on the first year of new services – including any additional trains put on by the current sole operator, Eurostar – while overall track access charges could also be reduced if the high-speed line was used more fully, Sinclair said.The operator is charged about £7,600 on the track from London to Folkestone at present and there would be approximately a £2,000 reduction on a new route, with a smaller discount in the next two years.There could be an outlay of £40m-£60m from LSPH, although that sum would be a fraction of the revenues it could expect to earn from a growth in the number of services on the route.The rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, this week said Eurostar was able to make room in its Temple Mills depot for competitors hoping to start international rail services.Virgin Group said it meant “the last hurdle” had been cleared in its ambition to run trains to France and beyond. Two other potential entrants are the Spanish firm Evolyn and British startup Gemini Trains.Getlink, the owner of Eurotunnel, is also pushing for new routes and competition to Eurostar.Sinclair said the combination of factors meant a “step-change” in the availability of trains to Europe was coming – including plans for redevelopment of parts of St Pancras and faster check-in and boarding, upping the capacity from about 2,000 passengers an hour to nearly 5,000.He said: “This is a system, and there are a lot of parties working to achieve this – and the government is very supportive. It wants economic growth, sustainable travel and better relationships with Europe, and we tick all of those boxes.”A spokesperson for Eurostar said: “Eurostar welcomes any incentives which enable more sustainable international travel and support our plans to run more services. Our ambitions are why we’re also investing in key international stations like St Pancras and the Temple Mills depot to create more space.”

Donald Trump’s announcement of a long slate of new tariffs on the US’s trading partners has caused chaos in global markets and threatens a global trade war and US recession.Long trailed on his election campaign, Trump’s plans were even more sweeping than many had predicted: a baseline 10% tariff on all imports and higher tariffs for key trading partners, including China and the EU.Though the tariffs won’t go into effect for a few more days, global markets have been reeling from the announcement of what’s to come.Here’s a breakdown of what the tariffs are and how they’ve affected the economy since Trump’s announcement.The new tariffsTrump’s new tariffs are twofold. First, all imported goods will be subject to a 10% universal tariff starting 5 April. Then, on 9 April, certain countries will see higher tariff rates – what Trump has deemed “reciprocal tariffs” in retaliation for tariffs the countries have placed on American exports.Keep in mind that tariffs are paid by American companies that are importing goods such as wine from Europe or microchips from Taiwan.Some of the highest tariffs will be put on imports from Asian countries, including China, India, South Korea and Japan. EU exports will also have a 20% tariff.How did the White House calculate its reciprocal tariffs? The administration said that it looked at the trade deficit between the US and a specific country as a percentage, and then considered that to be a tariff. So, for example, the value of US goods that are exported to China are 67% of the value of the Chinese goods that are imported into the US.The White House calls this definition a “tariff” placed on American goods, though a deficit and a tariff are not the same thing.It then halved the “tariff” and used that percentage to represent the new levy that the US would place on goods from that country.Canada and Mexico are notably absent from the list, despite being targets of a proposed 25% tariff. The White House said that goods covered under an existing trade agreement between the two countries will continue to have no tariffs.Targeting key trading partnersTrump and his economic advisers argue that the tariffs will strengthen US manufacturing while also lowering barriers other countries put on American goods. But the US has long been in a trade deficit, importing more goods than exporting.While increasing domestic manufacturing and relying less on foreign suppliers could strengthen the US economy in the long run, economists say that Trump’s tariffs are too aggressive and uncertain for them to actually encourage domestic investment. Instead, companies have said they will pass the cost of the tariffs on to consumers.Fear on Wall StreetMarkets immediately plummeted when exchanges started trading on Thursday morning, as Wall Street reacted to the new levies.Wall Street has been slumping for the last month as Trump introduced new tariffs and teased the ones he announced on Wednesday. All three exchanges went into correction territory in March, meaning that the indexes fell more than 10% from their recent peaks.The tariffs have also hit stock markets abroad. The UK’s FTSE 100 saw its worst day since August 2024, while markets in Japan, Hong Kong and Germany also tumbled.Leaders around the world expressed shock and frustration over the new tariffs. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, called the tariffs “a major blow to the world economy”.“The global economy will massively suffer,” she said Thursday. “Uncertainty will spiral and trigger the rise of further protectionism. The consequences will be dire.”The new tariffs have also made the US dollar fall in value in relation to other major currencies.The strength of the US dollar is an important measure of how the US economy is seen by investors, relative to other economies. That the dollar has been falling shows that investors see instability in the US economy that is likely to last.

Different generations of tennis fans may disagree on its name – to traditionalists it will always be Henman Hill, millennials probably plump for Murray Mound and gen Z may know it as Raducanu Rise or even, regrettably, Jack’s Stack – but all ages can agree that bringing a little shelter to Wimbledon’s most famous viewing area can only be a good thing.Wimbledon’s Hill – which since 1997 has allowed tennis fans with a grounds pass to watch the action on No 1 Court live atop its grassy knoll – is getting a makeover, the All England Lawn and Tennis Club (AELTC) has announced.A multimillion-pound development, due to be finished in time for the 2027 championships, will boost the Hill’s capacity by 20% and improve accessibility for wheelchair users. Plans include a new pergola – and there is little Wimbledon likes more than a pergola – which will provide a space for more hanging plants to provide shade and protection from British summer rain.The pergola, which will replace the structure at the top of the Hill, will wrap around the area’s 150-year-old oak tree while the AELTC hopes to make the area more environmentally sustainable by replacing tarmac paths with permeable resin. New accessible pathways to cross the slope aim to make the Hill easier to navigate for wheelchair users.View image in fullscreen“The redevelopment of our world-famous Hill, in time for the championships 2027, will allow even more tennis fans to enjoy its unique atmosphere and vantage point,” said Deborah Jevans, the AELTC chair.“I am particularly pleased that these plans will increase the accessibility of the Hill for our guests using wheelchairs or who have additional accessibility requirements. It is an exciting opportunity as we look towards 2027 and the 150th anniversary of the first championships.”A consultation for local residents to learn more about the plans and give feedback is planned on 10 April before a planning application is submitted to Merton council.The AELTC will hope it is a smoother process than it experienced with its plan to vastly expand its grand slam venue, which aims to add 39 courts and an 8,000-seat show court, and to restore a lake designed by Capability Brown.In January a campaign group, Save Wimbledon Park, started legal action to stop the expansion of the club, calling for a judicial review of plans to convert a swathe of the former Wimbledon Park golf course.The protest group says the development of the 29-hectare (72-acre) site – which was given planning permission in September by the mayor of London’s office – is “inappropriate”.Work on the new-look Hill will start after the 2026 championships, and is expected to be unveiled – presumably with Pimm’s to toast the occasion – for the 150th anniversary of the tournament in 2027.Ruth Hopkins, general manager and head of access at the charity Level Playing Field, said: “I am delighted that Level Playing Field has played an important role in working with the AELTC to enhance their world-famous hill to be an inclusive and accessible space for everyone attending Wimbledon.“These plans will deliver significant improvements for all guests but particularly for those with accessibility requirements.”

Meta faces a $2.4bn (£1.8bn) lawsuit accusing the Facebook owner of inflaming violence in Ethiopia after the Kenyan high court said a legal case against the US tech group could go ahead.The case brought by two Ethiopian nationals calls on Facebook to alter its algorithm to stop promoting hateful material and incitement to violence, as well as hiring more content moderators in Africa. It is also seeking a $2.4bn “restitution fund” for victims of hate and violence incited on Facebook.One of the claimants is the son of Prof Meareg Amare Abrha, who was murdered at his home in Ethiopia after his address and threatening posts were published on Facebook in 2021 during a civil war in the country. Another claimant is Fisseha Tekle, a former researcher at Amnesty International who published reports on violence committed during the conflict in Tigray in northern Ethiopia and received death threats on Facebook.Meta has argued that courts in Kenya, where Facebook’s Ethiopia moderators were based at the time, did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Kenyan high court in Nairobi ruled on Thursday that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the country’s courts.Abrham Meareg, the son of Meareg, said: “I am grateful for the court’s decision today. It is disgraceful that Meta would argue that they should not be subject to the rule of law in Kenya. African lives matter.”Tekle said he cannot return home to Ethiopia because of Meta’s failure to make Facebook safe. “Meta cannot undo the damage it has done, but it can radically change how it moderates dangerous content across all its platforms to make sure no one else has to go through what I have,” he said. “I look forward to this matter now being heard by the court in full.”The case, supported by non-profit organisations including Foxglove and Amnesty International, also demands a formal apology from Meta for the murder of Meareg. The Katiba Institute, a Kenya-based NGO focusing on the Kenyan constitution, is the third claimant in the case.In 2022 an analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Observer found that Facebook was letting users post content inciting violence through hate and misinformation, despite being aware that it was fuelling tensions in Tigray.Meta rejected the claims at the time, saying it had “invested in safety and security measures” to tackle hate and inflammatory language along with “aggressive steps to stop the spread of misinformation” in Ethiopia.In January the company said it was removing factcheckers and “dramatically” reducing the amount of censorship on the platform, although it would continue to tackle illegal and high severity violations.Meta said it did not comment on ongoing legal matters.

So much for the idea that “liberation day” would free financial markets from their fear of the unknown. Publication of precise tariff rates, went a cheerful line of advance thinking, would at least allow investors to assess the probable trade effects on the basis of hard information. True optimists clung to the idea that Donald Trump would not wish to risk a truly severe market reaction.That narrative was blown apart when the president reached for his pub-style display of wares. This really was a case of going back to the tariffs rates of the 1920s or 1930s. Not even the penguins of Heard Island and the McDonald Islands were spared.The S&P 500 index fell 4% in early trading and is down more than 10% from its high six weeks ago. The dollar fell sharply even though traditional logic says tariffs ought to be currency-positive if $600bn (£457.5bn) of extra revenue is on cards. On this occasion, the market simply adjusted to the higher likelihood of a US recession from higher prices and slower growth.Instead of clarity, there are just more questions. The first is a common one with Trump announcements: how much is designed to be permanent and how much is theatre to provoke a negotiation?On that score, analysts noted the simplistic – or plain perverse – formula behind the administration’s tariff arithmetic. It seems to have taken a country’s trade deficit in goods with US, divided it by its exports to the US and called the resulting number a trade barrier that deserves a “reciprocal” US tariff. The underlying logic, it would appear, is that every country should always have a perfect trade balance with the US – never mind the impossibility of achieving that outcome, and never mind that the tariffs don’t affect trade in services.“We worry this risks lowering the policy credibility of the administration on a forward-looking basis,” said George Saravelos of Deutsche Bank. “The market may question the extent to which a sufficiently structured planning process for major economic decisions is taking place. After all, this is the biggest trade policy shift from the US in a century.”At a push, one could argue that such an unserious methodology is intended to encourage negotiations. The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, tried to hint along those lines: “As long as you don’t retaliate, this is the high end of the number.”Yet the opposite conclusion is also valid: it is hard to negotiate with a US partner that, seemingly, isn’t interested in nuances, won’t distinguish between tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and is simply obsessed with a country’s overall trade balance in goods.That leads to the second question of retaliation, especially from the EU and China. The latter took a February tariff skirmish on the chin but surely can’t afford to ignore a 34% reciprocal tariff that takes its total to 54%.Option A for China is probably a currency devaluation to restore competitiveness (but risking even higher tariffs from the US). Option B would be retaliatory tariffs. Option C would be the longer haul of trying to stir domestic demand. A combination of all three might be the outcome, but all promise further disruption.For the EU, all eyes are on how hard it goes with counter-tariffs to a blanket 20%. The bluntness of Trump’s move almost guarantees a response if only to demonstrate strength before an eventual negotiation. A quick resolution is not the way to bet.The third question is the biggest: what will Trump do when, as virtually every economist predicts, the tariffs backfire? Snap estimates among economists suggested they would take as much as 2 percentage points off US growth this year and add 3 percentage points to inflation. How much pain is Trump prepared to take in pursuit of his signature policy?The view from bond specialist Pimco is that we should be wary. “He is certainly not entirely impervious to a market decline, nor is he unaffected by public sentiment, significant congressional pushback or concerns about a recession,” says Libby Cantrill, its head of US public policy.“So, there is likely a limit to how much pain he and his administration are willing to endure in order to rebalance the economy, but when that is or what that looks like remains to be seen. For now, we should assume that his pain tolerance is pretty high and that tariffs stick around for a while.”That seems a reasonable assumption. Within the internal logic of his trade policy, Trump needs to serve up a tax cut for US workers to parade the “winnings” from his approach; only then could he dial down the tariffs. We are a very long way from that point – if it ever arrives. The political test will come if recession arrives first.