I'm betting Trump is going pull some stunt if there's a trade deal with the UK?

[imanamerican63]

If there are anything of value? It was rushed and it will most likely be a horrible deal for the US?

[Lovie777]

1. Smoke and mirrors..................

[gab13by13]

2. So what?

We don't have a trade imbalance with the UK, so using Krasnov's logic, we haven't gained any money.

[C_U_L8R]

3. He's desperate for a "win"

Even if it is phony baloney kabuki theatre.
His chorus will be singing dear leader praises.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. He wants a Knighthood like Giuliani.

Or get Kate Middleton’s cell phone # for Ivanka.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. The suggestion is that the Digital Services Tax on big tech companies will be slashed

The tax was introduced in 2020 by the Conservatives, to try and stop Amazon, Meta etc. who are effectively making profits in the UK, from using accounting tricks to move the profit elsewhere - so that they pay almost no tax in the UK. Starmer and his government have repeatedly been asked if it's in the discussions, and he's never denied that.

So what Trump may be getting is money for big tech that has been supporting him. Plus, perhaps, The Open at his golf club - not in the gift of the government, of course, but they can put on pressure behind the scenes. Non-golfers might be happy for that to be the price, but I fear Trump may get both DST slashed and The Open.

Having written that, I now see a rumour that DST has been left unchanged - in which case Starmer has been negotiating properly, not kowtowing:

The terms are expected to be announced by US President Donald Trump at 3pm UK time, and will see an end to the 25 per cent tariff on steel and cars, in a boon to the UK auto industry which was worth about £9bn last year.

Negotiations on reducing the US-imposed 10 per cent tariffs across all sectors are expected to be continued in the near future.

And the UK is not expected to lower its 2 per cent digital services tax on US firms owned by billionaires like Trump aide Elon Musk – in another win for Starmer.

British farmers are likely to be pleased by the fact that there has been no UK concession on food standards imported from the US in the deal. This is also likely to be seen as a diplomatic win for the UK if the US has accepted even a narrow deal while dropping demands in this area.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/whats-really-in-uk-trump-trade-deal-3682727

So the details should be public in under an hour from now.

[surfered]

5. Just like The Apprentice, most of his actions are performative. He's always "selling."

[underpants]

6. We have a trade surplus with them

This is low hanging fruit

[newdeal2]

7. Sounds like a win for the UK

They’ve been desperate for a trade deal since Brexit.

I wonder what this means for Trump’s Hollywood tariff though. Lot of films are shot in the UK.

[the_liberal_grandpa]

9. "Trade Agreements" must be approved by congress so

anything called a trade deal today would just be more orange bullshit.

This only serve too keep the wool pulled over weak minded maga republicans and the compliant media and help him survive another day.

As store shelves empty and unemployment begins to rise along with interest rates I expect he will start doing more of this.

I suppose it's better than starting a war...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. It's the concept of a deal

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. Maddow Blog-Trump's 'trade deal' with the United Kingdom isn't yet an actual trade deal

Last edited Fri May 9, 2025, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

The president said he’s reached a “conclusive” and “comprehensive” trade deal with the U.K. Reality suggests otherwise.

Whether Navarro understands this or not, Trump's "conclusive trade deal" with the UK is neither conclusive nor a trade deal:

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-trade-deal-united-kingdom-isnt-yet-actual-trade-deal-rcna205623

It’s easy to understand why Donald Trump might be embarrassed by his lack of second-term trade deals. About a month ago, Peter Navarro, the White House’s top trade adviser, boasted in March, “We’re going to run 90 deals in 90 days.” Navarro added that such a plan “is possible” in part because “the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.”....

On Wednesday night, the president used his social media platform to announce that the White House had struck a “MAJOR TRADE DEAL.” The following morning, he added that a “full and comprehensive” trade agreement is in place with the United Kingdom, which was soon followed by another online item in which Trump claimed, “Together with our strong Ally, the United Kingdom, we have reached the first, historic Trade Deal since Liberation Day.”

It all sounded rather exciting — right up until the public learned that the “trade deal” isn’t an actual trade deal, at least not yet. NBC News reported:

The U.S. is working toward finalizing a narrow trade deal with the United Kingdom, President Donald Trump said Thursday, a small step as the White House pursues an aggressive tariff agenda across the globe. According to a document furnished by the U.K., the agreement will see duties on U.K. car imports reduced from 27.5% to 10%, while tariffs on U.K. steel imports will be dropped. In return, the U.K. is lowering trade barriers on U.S. beef imports and ethanol.

The emerging picture is one in which the White House has settled on a non-binding framework for a possible future deal with the United States’ 11th largest trading partner. This sets the stage for a series of additional talks — negotiations that will likely last months — that may or may not lead to an agreement......

The problem, of course, is that the first part of the claim is plainly at odds with the second: If an agreement is still taking shape and is likely to undergo a series of changes, then the new framework obviously is neither “conclusive” nor “comprehensive.”

In his first term, Trump had an unfortunate habit of wildly exaggerating the scope and scale of his narrow trade agreements. In his second term, the Republican is apparently picking up where he left off.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. trump did not disclose his "agreement" or deal because there was no deal. This was an agreement to agree

This "trade deal" was not a real deal but an agreement to agree that was by its own terms non-binding. In my world, this is called a letter of intent and this "trade deal" has the same non-binding language that is in all letters of intent'

Link to tweet