President Trump’s new tariffs on British exports aren’t just a bump in the road they’re a direct threat to our economic independence. The Office for Budget Responsibility says they could knock a full percentage point off our GDP by 2026–27. That’s not abstract. That’s real people losing jobs. Real businesses, especially in places like the North East, struggling to survive.
We can’t afford to shrug this off. If we’ve learned anything from recent years, it’s that we need to be more self-reliant, more rooted, and far less dependent on volatile international partners. That starts with something simple: choosing to buy British, not as a token gesture, but as a conscious act of resilience and solidarity.
Backing our own
We’ve got world-class small businesses across the UK, family shops, independent bookshops, local food producers, run by people who care deeply about what they do and the communities they serve. They already make up over 60% of private sector employment. Every time we choose them over a multinational, we’re doing more than supporting a local business, we’re helping keep our high streets alive, our communities stable, and our economy balanced.
For too long, our towns have been hollowed out by the same big chains, offering the same tired products. The money we spend there often disappears offshore. But when we choose local, we keep that money circulating in our economy. We create jobs, nurture pride, and get something better in return, better service, better quality, and a genuine sense of connection. That’s how we build strong communities, not just strong economies.
Real leadership, real partnerships
This isn’t just about reacting to Trump’s policies. It’s about shifting our whole approach. When Ed Davey praised the Prime Minister for backing a military coalition to defend Ukraine, he was absolutely right, but he also called for the same level of ambition to build an economic coalition to push back against protectionism. We need to lead with ideas, with partnerships, with action.
And while we’re at it, we mustn’t overlook the value of restoring strong ties with Europe. The uncertainty of U.S. trade policy only makes it clearer: we need stable, reliable partnerships. A new customs union with the EU would allow smoother trade, fewer border headaches, and a stronger footing for British businesses to grow. It’s pragmatic, not nostalgic. It gives us the economic security we need to thrive in a competitive world.
Making it happen
Of course, none of this works without proper support. That means tax breaks and incentives for small businesses to grow and hire. It means using public sector contracts to support local suppliers rather than outsourcing abroad. It means investing in infrastructure, fast internet, better transport, accessible commercial spaces, so businesses can compete. And it means funding innovation, giving local entrepreneurs the tools to turn ideas into impact.
Trump’s tariffs should be a wake-up call. We need to build an economy that can stand on its own two feet. By choosing to Buy British, we’re not just making a political statement, we’re investing in the future of our communities and our country.
This is about pride, resilience, and responsibility. Let’s back our businesses, strengthen our neighbourhoods, and make “Buy British” more than a motto, it’s time to make it a movement.
* Mo Waqas is Chair of the Lib Dem’s Stockton branch and was the PPC for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
12 opening scenes from Malcolm in the Middle
Reform drop council by-election candidate Irene Davidson
HERA - Harris Education and Recreation Association updates #dundeewestend
Mick Scholes
Dominic
Andy Chandler
Lyell Yardarms
21 Comments
Had you suggested a ‘not buy American policy’, that would be an appropriate response. However, urging a ‘buy British’ approach is just copying Trump’s intent and could have two bad consequences – 1) that we start to hurt our allies by our actions, and 2) other countries copy this approach so that international trade shrinks (making everyone poorer).
Personally I will continue to buy the best quality at a similar price or the cheapest product if quality is similar.
The best way is to follow our Canadian friends’ example and stop buying American made products, products where a substantial proportion of the purchase price goes to the US or where the profits go to American holding companies, except where it is effectively impossible to do so. Thus UK made Nissan’s rather than Fords, Burger King rather than McDonalds etc.
Personally I prefer to buy British if possible though very often it is not, partly to minimise the transport CO2 emissions, but also to borrow a football analogy, if you don’t support your own town club, you don’t have any right to complain when they lose.
This I think trumps (in the English Bridge playing sense, not the noxious American one) Mike’s second point where the cheapest is often Chinese and to my mind, they are an even bigger threat to our way of life and values. At least there is a chance for the US in 2029.
With its 1.8 trillion budget deficit in 2024 and its current public national debt of nearly 30 trillion dollars we’ve got to accept the US economy is actually in big trouble.
@ David Evans ( & others)
On a point of information: Burger King Corporation is an American multinational chain of hamburger fast food restaurants. Headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida…..
I’m not sure what a non-American owned alternative might be. Maybe Wimpey which is South African HQd. If you can find one!
@ Christopher Haigh,
“….we’ve got to accept the US economy is actually in big trouble.”
It is – but not for the reason you think. It’s because the US has an economic illiterate in charge.
If the R.O.W. has a desire to save in US$, there will be a net positive inflow into the US capital account. This has to be balanced by a net negative outflow in the current trading account.
This will also show up as a deficit in the Govt budget account. See ‘twin deficit hypothesis’. I’d put it as more than a hypothesis. It’s an observable fact and is readily explainable from the arithmetic of the sectoral balances.
It’s the same problem we have in the UK.
Both Donald Trump and Rachel Reeves are getting it wrong big time.
Trump still believes it is foreign countries that pay his tariffs rather than USA importers. His grasp of economics is tenuous to say the least.
If I was asked to name the top 3 things we stand for then Internationalism would be in there, to put it more sharply we are Against Nationalism, British as well as American.
There is a case for temporary boycotts of American Firms & for standing alongside our Friends in Europe & The Commonwealth but we can’t use Nationalism, its against our core values.
Trump is mostly hurting Americans.
Christopher Haigh points to a real dilemma when he writes “With its 1.8 trillion budget deficit in 2024 and its current public national debt of nearly 30 trillion dollars we’ve got to accept the US economy is actually in big trouble”. Deindustalisaion has left American workers in the ‘rust belt’ feeling frustrated with their declining living standrds and lack of propects for any improvement. Trump won the presidency on the back of these left behind voters resentment. The same conditions exist in the UK’s former industrial areas in the North and the Welsh valleys and have given us both Brexit and the rise of the reform party.
Trumps’ Secetary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, has written an essay for the economist setting out the current US government views on on how the international economic system should change
In essence, The USA wants to begin a process of reindustalisation while maintaining the dollar as the primary International reserve currency overcoming the Triffin dillema by a process of cooperation with or coercion of allies (or dependent nations) to lower the value of the dollar. Tariff chaos may be step 1 of a process aimed at strenfthenng the US hand in negotation of trade settlements A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System
The International trade system was negotiated among allied countries at Bretton Woods in 1944. Keynes had proposed the ‘Bancor’, a currency to be used solely for International trade with penalties for both surplus and deficit countries. However, the US prevailed and the dollar assumed its exorbitant privilege as the currency againsrt which all other currencies would fix their exchange rates. That system broke down in 1971 when Nixon ended US dollar gold conversion. Neoliberism was established as a replacement system by Reagan/Thatcher and in 1985 the Plaza Accord was negotiated to lower the inflated value of the dollar and curb then rising US trade deficits.
The Trump administration appears to want a new ‘Maralago accord’ wherby surplus countries appreciate their currencies against the dollar and discontinue wage suppression (as in Germany or currency manipulation as in China) to boost domestic demand and suck in US goods to their markets.
The UK tariffs may not be so onerous in comparison with levies against other countries exports and may even offer an opportunity to increase UK exports in some sectors where UK pricess become more competitive as a consequence of comparatively lower tariffs. More problematic are the very high tariffs levied on cars, steel and aluminium.
@Joe Bourke, the World Trade Organisation has not worked out as the USA expected it to, with huge trade surplus being built up in China, Japan and Russia and benefits not passed on to the mass of populations to buy American goods. Perhaps we need a new Bretton Woods type conference which is not dominated by American interest this time.
I find myself in rare agreement with Peter Martin in that both Trump and Reeves are getting it spectacularly wrong, for completely different reasons. Reeves is alas a highly orthodox economist and believes all sorts of things like not raising taxes especially on the rich, budget black holes, cutting benefits and foreign aid stringent fiscal rules and more. Trump is just an economic illiterate.
On the general tenor of this article, I think not buying US goods is by far the better course and removing them from shelves, as Canadians are doing, makes the point. Returning them to the USA would be even better. Flag waving but British is not the way forward
“With its 1.8 trillion budget deficit in 2024 and its current public national debt of nearly 30 trillion dollars…..”
You could add an annual trade deficit of a trillion dollars too. The figures for the UK look are lot different in absolute numbers but they aren’t so much different in GDP terms.
Mick Taylor correctly makes the point that both Trump and Reeves are getting it spectacularly wrong in their separate ways. But what is behind their different approaches?
Trump has correctly identified that the trade deficit is the driver, at least partially, for the US budget deficit and national debt in a way that looks to be absent from RR’s thinking. His approach is obviously to try to rectify this by imposing tariffs.
RR takes the more conventional view that the way to reduce a budget deficit is by the application of spending cuts and tax increases.
Neither will work unless the capital inflows into the countries are reduced. This would have the effect of lowering the value of the $ and £ on the forex markets making exports more competitive and imports less affordable. This unfortunately is the opposite of what both, especially RR, would like to see happen!
They are both fighting against basic arithmetic. It’s not likely to end well!
@ Peter martin, hi Peter I think you have lost me a bit.Can you explain what you are saying in simpler narrative please !
@ Christopher,
I’m not sure that I can explain it all in a comment with a 250 word limit.
However I might just say that the conventional view of economics, which we hear all the time in the mainstream media, often has everything the wrong way around. So, for example, the conventional view is that countries like the UK and USA, with significant Budget and Trade deficits have to borrow to support these deficits.
The alternative, and I would argue the correct view, is that neither country goes out to actively borrow. Except that both set their levels of interest rates to either encourage or discourage the inward flow of capital into the country. It’s this inward flow which creates an equal and opposite outward flow in the form of a trade imbalance which in turn creates a budget imbalance. A floating currency will naturally create it.
This can be explained in terms of the National sectoral balances.
Also an alternative view is that neither of these deficits should be regarded as problem providing both inflation and levels of unemployment are kept under control. However, if they are to be considered as a problem then the right remedies need to be applied; but, neither Reeves nor Trump have the right approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances
Thanks Peter. Theoretically these trade imbalances should be sorted out through exchange rate fluctuations. The trouble is that such as China have such vast foreign currency reserves that they can intervene to prevent the necessary fluctuations. I’ve got to agree with Trump that China is the biggest problem with regard to balancing international trade.
The Trump administation mercantilist approach to International trade policy flies in the face of 250 years of economic understanding since the days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s treatise on comparative advantage.
A countries Imports have to be paid for with exports of good and services or the sale of domestic assets i.e. shares, public or private bonds, property and investments in domestic companies. The problem with persistent trade deficits over a long period of time and an increasing reliance on the sale of assets is that asset prices are continually inflated whether it be financial instruments, property or domestic businesses. The consequence of inflated asset prices is increasing pressure to generate profits/returns on assets by squeezing down labour and other input costs and inflated property prices that see declining home ownership and push up rents for wage earners. High demand for domestic assets (supported by persistent trade deficits) also prevents currency exchange rates from adjusting to the lower levels that might serve as an automatic correction of ongoing trade imbalances.
The UK and the USA share the features of having a dominant financial sector drawing in investments, persistent trade deficits and high levels of inequality.
I think Rachel Reeves has the right idea in trying to encourage domestic investment but cannot achieve it without radical tax reform and redistribution for the UK.
In the USA, the Biden administation were beginning to make progress with the Inflation reduction act and Chips Act, but that investment led economic policy is out the window and Trump’s tariff policy is more likely to bring on a major global slump rather than do anything for American workers.
China has announced its retaliation today with a 34% tariff additional tariff on American imports. If these Tariffs are not quickly negoatiated away, we will be on course to see the same results as that of the beggar thy neighbour Smoot-Hawley tariffs introduced in 1930 a few months after the Wall Street Crash i.e. a decade long global depression until the next world war resets International trade again.
I agree with Mike Peter’s, direct action namely avoid purchasing from the US is going to be more effective.
For example, currently the UK government spends circa £23bn on IT, the lion’s share of which goes to US HQ’d businesses, now is the time for the government to take real steps to change this, redirecting monies to UK and European HQ’d businesses.
A second example is the expanding defence budget, where we get the benefit of being able to use the weapons purchased without the permission of the White House…
@ Christopher,
” Theoretically these trade imbalances should be sorted out through exchange rate fluctuations.”
Only if everyone genuinely lets their currency freely float.
If one or more countries “tilt the table” to ensure they run a trade surplus then the others will, in aggregate, run an equivalent trade deficit.
Sometimes it is permissible for countries to do that. A developing country will perhaps want to build up some foreign currency reserves. Often it isn’t, or shouldn’t be, at all permissible. There’s no need for a developed country to run an huge export surplus just for the sake of it.
It can also be misleading if you only look at the trade imbalance between two countries in isolation. As a theoretical example: Suppose country A has a £100 Bn trade deficit with country B. B has a £100 Bn trade deficit with C, and C has a £100 Bn trade deficit with A. If you look at any two of those countries, you’d think that there’s an unsustainable deficit and something needs to be done. But actually the overall trade between all three countries is perfectly in balance.
I agree. We need to grow more of our own food, build more of our trains, energy infrastructure and ships and also train more of our own citizens so that we rely less on imported labour. Being an island it should be obvious that we can and should be more self sufficient. International trade is important but is not a substitute for home grown products and services.