INEOS Automotive statement on the US tariffs announcement

INEOS Automotive statement on the US tariffs announcement​

We are outraged that the tariff situation with the US has been neglected by the EU.



President Trump has been very clear on his intention to implement tariffs on the auto industry. He has been asking for fairness and reciprocity and yet European leaders have not come to the table to negotiate a better solution.



The US government has also been clear about the consequences of non-engagement. This should be a surprise to no-one in the EU, and it could and should have been averted.



Lynn Calder, CEO of INEOS Automotive commented: “This is what happens when politicians sit on their hands. As a growing EU-based automobile brand, we are vulnerable to tariffs, and we need our politicians to support our business, our jobs and our economies. We need urgent and direct political intervention on tariffs.



“We will give whatever support we can to our political leaders to keep the playing field even for small, competitive brands such as Grenadier. But we must see action from EU politicians: only they are in a position to address the issue. Fortunately, we have been planning for tariffs but there is only so much we can do to protect US customers from price rises.”

 

[internal]

I meant the INEOS Automotive headquarters. But Switzerland isn't in the EU either ;-)

The HQ's are in Rolle, Switzerland and London. But the holding is in Switzerland. He left the UK a few years ago just to return with some companies back to the UK.

AWo

 

[255/85]

Heavy tariff plan #1: they are a long term tax reduction tool (as @Shopkeep suggests)

I think this is unlikely. The USA administration seems staffed with fresh amateurs and they're making a lot of mistakes. Oh man, what a week. Seeing through long term tariffs like this will take patience and confidence in economic theory. And competence. Objectively, these qualities are lacking.

Heavy tariff theory #2: they are a short term tool to wake up the world and offer the USA more favourable terms in trade and military cost sharing

This seems much more likely IMO. It's just a poker bluff. Any administration full of amateurs can bumble through this short term until countries come to the table and renegotiate. And it'll probably work to the USA's favour to some degree. And to the degree it works, Donald will claim 200% victory and put that feather in his cap.

My take is that we'll see something of a combination of the two "plans". There's no doubt that little of the overall approach of the first originated with Trump. It's all Project 2025 and, factually, the aim of many, many ideologues and politicians for years now. The shrinking of government/regulation and the shifting of the tax burden from those that use the majority of the US' infrastructure and support in the form of highways, shipping ports, domestic/international legal system, and the gargantuan enforcement tool that is our military onto the backs of everyone who punches a time clock has been reiterated as the ultimate objective for as long as I can remember. Trump et al. are mere opportunists here.

The second plan is haphazard gambit. If major manufacturing somehow magically returns to the US then great! If not? Oh well. If we get unhindered access to other markets then great! If not? Oh well. Either way Trump looks like a big, tough manly-man throwing his weight around. Americans need a Daddy or they can't sleep at night.

Overriding all of the above is the current president's compulsive personality. He doesn't appear to be an ideologue guided by a consciously adopted philosophy. He'll throw monkey wrenches left and right then spin his way out of responsibility. Ukraine is a perfect example. I'd prepare for a bumpy road full of perplexing zigs and zags... at least until there's a change in the power balance of Congress over here.

 

[landmannnn]

Just wait until he orders the troops into Greenland.
Nobody will be talking about tariffs.

 

[holdmybeer]

Yeah, good analysis @255/85 . Even if there was an ideology, the patience and commitment to see it through is not going to be there. Every hiccup that offends Donald risks derailing a nuanced plan. One tier down from the executive, there are probably enough crazed and devoted yes-men to see a plan through, but they need a stable leader.

Balance of power ... fingers crossed for that. The world watches to see if the checks and balances that are designed to stabilize the American system will actually work. Congress seems ineffective, even with apparent constitutional issues afoot (that's their jurisdiction, no?) and the judiciary is simply being ignored when it orders the executive to stop.

Donald is testing congressional and judicial power boundaries and winning and that's a scary new system unless you're into dictators.

 

[Zimm]

I think it’s brilliant. - they are creating room for a back door exemption, if that is at all possible. They are also probably working the “tough billionaire businessman” angle w Ratcliffe, which Trump would inevitably find sympathetic. I would be going hard on the Ratcliffe angle, “incompetent Brussels bureaucrat” angle, alpha male tank angle - all of it. Maybe even dangle prospects (without committing) of future production in the US (close to the BMW plant in South Carolina, as I’ve mentioned before). Ineos gains nothing by posing as EU victims - they are playing it smart.

Youre giving way too much credit to everyone.

 

[Zimm]

We only voted for Brexit to get rid of start stop and lane departure warning

90% of the roads in Wales are 1.3 lanes wide. Does that mean lane departure never works, or, does it never stop bonging?

 

[DaveB]

Heavy tariff plan #1: they are a long term tax reduction tool (as @Shopkeep suggests)

I think this is unlikely. The USA administration seems staffed with fresh amateurs and they're making a lot of mistakes. Oh man, what a week. Seeing through long term tariffs like this will take patience and confidence in economic theory. And competence. Objectively, these qualities are lacking.

Heavy tariff theory #2: they are a short term tool to wake up the world and offer the USA more favourable terms in trade and military cost sharing

This seems much more likely IMO. It's just a poker bluff. Any administration full of amateurs can bumble through this short term until countries come to the table and renegotiate. And it'll probably work to the USA's favour to some degree. And to the degree it works, Donald will claim 200% victory and put that feather in his cap.

It should be interesting if he follows through on his dumbarse comment to invade Canada by force.
Australia has an agreement with the US that we will go to war with them whenever they do.
Clearly though Canada and Australia are part of the Commonwealth with the UK, so we are required to support Canada.

 

[Max]

My take is that we'll see something of a combination of the two "plans". There's no doubt that little of the overall approach of the first originated with Trump. It's all Project 2025 and, factually, the aim of many, many ideologues and politicians for years now. The shrinking of government/regulation and the shifting of the tax burden from those that use the majority of the US' infrastructure and support in the form of highways, shipping ports, domestic/international legal system, and the gargantuan enforcement tool that is our military onto the backs of everyone who punches a time clock has been reiterated as the ultimate objective for as long as I can remember. Trump et al. are mere opportunists here.

Not much is new.
(in Marxist contexts) the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production.
"the conflict of interest between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat"

 

[Max]

90% of the roads in Wales are 1.3 lanes wide. Does that mean lane departure never works, or, does it never stop bonging?

And 90% of the time they would have to take their own white lines for it to work