1-20 of 22 results for subject:USA
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.221 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:USA
- We searched for
- subject_t:USA OR subject_t:"United States" OR subject_t:"United States of America" OR subject_t:US OR subject_ses:13557
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Today we remember with profound respect the importance of the multilateral alliance, and the sacrifices made 75 years ago today. Did the Secretary of State take the opportunity of the recent state visit involving those commemorations to express his dismay that UK companies might now fall foul of the Helms-Burton Act, which would subject
British businesses and investors to unfair legal challenge in the United States simply because that country has a dispute with the people with whom our companies are doing business?
The extraterritorial jurisdiction that the US claims under the Act was declared unenforceable by the EU under a Council regulation which we have recently replicated in the UK, but does it not send a chill through the Secretary of State that by deciding to activate Title III, the US President is threatening companies based outside the US which are simply going about their legitimate business? Does that not make the Secretary of State question whether the great deal that President Trump says he is already discussing with the UK would be great for the UK, or just for the US?
Today we remember with profound respect the importance of the multilateral alliance, and the sacrifices made 75 years ago today. Did the Secretary of State take the opportunity of the recent state visit involving those commemorations to express his dismay that UK companies might now fall foul of the Helms-Burton Act, which would subject
British businesses and investors to unfair legal challenge in the United States simply because that country has a dispute with the people with whom our companies are doing business?
The extraterritorial jurisdiction that the US claims under the Act was declared unenforceable by the EU under a Council regulation which we have recently replicated in the UK, but does it not send a chill through the Secretary of State that by deciding to activate Title III, the US President is threatening companies based outside the US which are simply going about their legitimate business? Does that not make the Secretary of State question whether the great deal that President Trump says he is already discussing with the UK would be great for the UK, or just for the US?
I agree that there are issues around the whole concept of extra-territorial rules on trade, which is why of course it is fundamental that we get a strengthening of the rules-based system at the WTO in Geneva. That will help us deal with some of those issues, but where the United Kingdom believes we have a unique role to play—for example in upholding the joint comprehensive plan of action—we will continue to do so, and we will resist any attempts to force UK trading entities to behave in a way that we do not believe is legal.
One of our most distinguished former diplomats, the noble Lord Kerr, spoke last week, during the passage of the Trade Bill in another place, of the value of having a mandate as a negotiator. He said:
“Having negotiated against Americans, I know that it greatly strengthens their hand to be able to say, “Here is the proof that I cannot give you what you want, because Congress would turn it down”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 671.]
Recently the US trade representative published the negotiating mandate for a US-UK trade deal—no concern about commercial confidentiality here, just openly and transparently setting out all the objectives they have for penetrating UK markets, with American healthcare and agribusiness to the fore. In the same week, the Secretary of State published his Command Paper. It is against mandates. Indeed, the Government tried unsuccessfully to defeat Lord Kerr and others who supported Lord Balmacara’s amendment. What does the Secretary of State know about negotiations that Lord Kerr does not, and will the Government try to reverse their lordships’ decision when the Bill returns to the Commons?
One of our most distinguished former diplomats, the noble Lord Kerr, spoke last week, during the passage of the Trade Bill in another place, of the value of having a mandate as a negotiator. He said:
“Having negotiated against Americans, I know that it greatly strengthens their hand to be able to say, “Here is the proof that I cannot give you what you want, because Congress would turn it down”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 671.]
Recently the US trade representative published the negotiating mandate for a US-UK trade deal—no concern about commercial confidentiality here, just openly and transparently setting out all the objectives they have for penetrating UK markets, with American healthcare and agribusiness to the fore. In the same week, the Secretary of State published his Command Paper. It is against mandates. Indeed, the Government tried unsuccessfully to defeat Lord Kerr and others who supported Lord Balmacara’s amendment. What does the Secretary of State know about negotiations that Lord Kerr does not, and will the Government try to reverse their lordships’ decision when the Bill returns to the Commons?
The Trade Bill was and is about trade continuity, including trade agreements and including the Trade Remedies Authority. It has been used, I am afraid, in the other place to hold debates on future trade agreements that will come in due course here. There is of course a difference between setting out negotiating objectives, which the United States did, and a mandate, which is how the negotiators actually go about it. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that point yet.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, how many staff in his Department were directly employed on negotiations in relation to (a) new trade agreements with (i) Australia, (ii) New Zealand and (iii) the US and (b) the UK's potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for...
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, how many staff in his Department were directly employed on negotiations in relation to (a) new trade agreements with (i) Australia, (ii) New Zealand and (iii) the US and (b) the UK's potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for...
DIT has been conducting preparatory work in relation to potential new trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand, the US and potential accession to CPTPP. Until the UK leaves the EU no formal negotiations can be undertaken with Australia, New Zealand, the US and the CPTPP nor have they been. That is a function that will occur after the UK has left the EU.
There is no one size fits all format or size for a negotiation team. Decisions on staff and resources are, therefore, still to be finalised. It should also be noted that the conduct of any negotiation will involve both front line staff and broader input covering a wider range of staff both from DIT and from other government departments.
Over recent months DIT has increased its efforts to deliver Trade Agreement Continuity with those third countries with which the EU has a signed agreement as part of our preparations for a potential No Deal scenario. Those efforts draw principally on the resources of the Trade Policy Group.
Since the Department was created its Trade Policy Group (TPG) has grown to approximately 480 people at the end of January 2019, bringing together trade policy, country specialists and experts on trade policy issues. A number of DIT staff in offshore posts are also undertaking work on market access trade policy issues.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with the UK-US Trade Working Group on access for UK steel producers to US Government procurement contracts in a future trade agreement.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with the UK-US Trade Working Group on access for UK steel producers to US Government procurement contracts in a future trade agreement.
The UK-US Trade and Investment Working Group has met on five occasions since it was launched in July 2017, most recently in November 2018. The working group’s aim is to provide commercial continuity across a wide range of sectors, including steel, for US and UK businesses, workers, and consumers as the UK leaves the EU and explore ways to strengthen trade and investment ties ahead of exit. The group is also laying the groundwork to ensure that both sides are well prepared to open trade negotiations on an free trade agreement after the UK leaves the EU in 2019.
What proposals has the Secretary of State made to his counterparts ahead of this weekend’s G20 ministerial meeting to avert the threat by the President of the United States to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organisation, and to ensure that the WTO can continue to function despite America’s refusal to approve appointments to the WTO’s appellate body—or has he made no proposals?
What proposals has the Secretary of State made to his counterparts ahead of this weekend’s G20 ministerial meeting to avert the threat by the President of the United States to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organisation, and to ensure that the WTO can continue to function despite America’s refusal to approve appointments to the WTO’s appellate body—or has he made no proposals?
I have had conversations with a number of my trade colleagues from Japan, Mexico and Canada all ahead of the G20 meeting. That is a very good opportunity for us to recommit ourselves to the concept and practice of free and open trade and the rules-based system based on the WTO in Geneva. We should be pointing out that protectionism has never ended well, and that the benefits that we have introduced in terms of the elimination of poverty and the support for our global security agenda are based on free trade. It is also worth saying that the alternative to a rules-based system is a deals-based system, which would upset the balance of global trade. Incidentally, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that he will find that the power to withdraw from the WTO is not a presidential power, but one that would require approval by Congress in law.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect on the UK beef sector of the European Commission’s proposal to allocate a larger share of its hormone-free beef quota to the US.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect on the UK beef sector of the European Commission’s proposal to allocate a larger share of its hormone-free beef quota to the US.
The European Commission submitted a draft negotiating mandate to the Council for approval on 4 September. The draft negotiating directives specify that the Commission may offer the United States a country-specific allocation of a certain proportion of the annual tariff rate quota for High Quality Beef (also known as the EU 481 grain fed quota). They make clear, however, that negotiations should not increase the total volume of the quota or total market access into the European Union. As this nonetheless encompasses a range of potential outcomes, it will not be possible to make an assessment of the impact until the negotiations are concluded and the details of any allocation that may be agreed upon are known.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect of the potential redistribution of the EU hormone-free beef quota on UK beef exports to the EU in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect of the potential redistribution of the EU hormone-free beef quota on UK beef exports to the EU in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
The European Commission submitted a draft negotiating mandate to the Council for approval on 4 September. The draft negotiating directives specify that the Commission may offer the United States a country-specific allocation of a certain proportion of the annual tariff rate quota for High Quality Beef (also known as the EU 481 grain fed quota). They make clear, however, that negotiations should not increase the total volume of the quota or total market access into the European Union. As this nonetheless encompasses a range of potential outcomes, it will not be possible to make an assessment of the impact until the negotiations are concluded and the details of any allocation that may be agreed upon are known.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed review of the EU hormone-free beef quota on the allocation of EU and UK tariff rate quotas.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed review of the EU hormone-free beef quota on the allocation of EU and UK tariff rate quotas.
The High Quality Beef quota (also known as the EU 481 grain fed quota) established under the Revised Memorandum of Understanding of 21 October 2013 is an autonomous tariff rate quota not bound in the EU’s World Trade Organisation (WTO) schedule. The review of this quota consequently has no bearing on the apportionment of the tariff rate quotas in the EU’s WTO schedule between the UK and the EU-27.
The US President seems intent on undermining the World Trade Organisation’s multilateral rules-based system. He is delaying the settlement of disputes by vetoing the appointment of judges to the appellate body and is using national security as a cover, in this case, for naked protectionism against foreign steel and aluminium. Does the Secretary of State still think that Donald Trump is a man we can do business with?
The US President seems intent on undermining the World Trade Organisation’s multilateral rules-based system. He is delaying the settlement of disputes by vetoing the appointment of judges to the appellate body and is using national security as a cover, in this case, for naked protectionism against foreign steel and aluminium. Does the Secretary of State still think that Donald Trump is a man we can do business with?
We do business with the United States Administration because the United States is our closest strategic partner. Where we disagree on issues such as steel, we make our voice very clear. We do not support the use of section 232 as a mechanism for dealing with the overproduction of steel. That actually hits the United States’ allies and not the designed target, which was China. Citing national security, particularly in Britain’s case, makes no sense at all given that some of the steel that we send to the United States goes into its military programmes.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with his counterparts in EU Member States on the potential merits of introducing safeguarding tariffs against cheap steel and aluminium imports redirected from the United States.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with his counterparts in EU Member States on the potential merits of introducing safeguarding tariffs against cheap steel and aluminium imports redirected from the United States.
The decision to initiate a safeguards investigation is the responsibility of the European Commission. We are working closely with the European Commission and EU Member States on a response to the proposed US actions.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what assessment he has made of the potential risk of retaliatory tariffs being imposed on the US causing a trade war; and what discussions he has had with the European Commission on that matter.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what assessment he has made of the potential risk of retaliatory tariffs being imposed on the US causing a trade war; and what discussions he has had with the European Commission on that matter.
My Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Trade, has been in close contact with Commissioner Malmström and has had a range of discussions. It is right that this situation is dealt with in a measured way, to temper the risk of escalation. We must ensure that we work within the boundaries of the rules-based international trading system.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what steps he is taking with his counterparts in other EU countries to impose re-balancing measures to offset the effects of the US tariffs.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what steps he is taking with his counterparts in other EU countries to impose re-balancing measures to offset the effects of the US tariffs.
The European Commission has published a list of possible countermeasures for consultation. We are in contact with EU counterparts and will make representations to the Commission following consultation with industry. Any decision to impose these measures will be based on a vote of Member States under the framework of the EU Enforcement Regulation.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what information he has received from the US Administration on the criteria by which requests for exemptions from the tariffs on steel and aluminium imports will be evaluated.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what information he has received from the US Administration on the criteria by which requests for exemptions from the tariffs on steel and aluminium imports will be evaluated.
My Rt Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has spoken on several occasions to the Commerce Secretary and to the US Trade Representative about the investigation, including when he travelled to Washington last week for face-to-face meetings with both to make the case for the UK as part of the EU.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on the potential merits of bringing a case to the World Trade Organisation on the US Administration's proposed steel and aluminium tariffs.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on the potential merits of bringing a case to the World Trade Organisation on the US Administration's proposed steel and aluminium tariffs.
I refer the hon. Member for Brent North to the answer I gave him on 21 March, UIN: 133081 & 133082.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, whether he has received legal advice on effectiveness of bringing a case to the World Trade Organisation on the introduction of steel and aluminium tariffs by the US administration.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, whether he has received legal advice on effectiveness of bringing a case to the World Trade Organisation on the introduction of steel and aluminium tariffs by the US administration.
Whilst we remain a Member State the EU is responsible for initiating and defending trade disputes on the UK’s behalf.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what steps he is taking to increase market access for UK steel to (a) existing and (b) new markets as a result of the tariffs on steel proposed by the US administration.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what steps he is taking to increase market access for UK steel to (a) existing and (b) new markets as a result of the tariffs on steel proposed by the US administration.
I refer the Hon. Member for Brent North to the answer I gave him on 21 March, UIN: 133084.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the potential for bringing a case to the WTO against the USA in respect of steel tariffs.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the potential for bringing a case to the WTO against the USA in respect of steel tariffs.
My Rt Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has been in close contact with Commissioner Malmstroem and has spoken to her directly about this matter by telephone.
This Department’s officials have been and will continue to be in close contact with their EU counterparts, through bilateral conversations and in the relevant Council bodies, such as the Trade Policy Committee. We will continue to be engaged on this matter and will work closely with the EU on how we can protect our industry from S232 provisions.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the potential for some countries to receive exemptions from the tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports; and what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of those counties...
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the potential for some countries to receive exemptions from the tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports; and what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of those counties...
The Prime Minister has raised her concerns directly with President Trump and my Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for International Trade has spoken on several occasions to the Commerce Secretary and to the US Trade Representative about the investigation, including when he travelled to Washington last week for face-to-face meetings with both, to make the case for the UK as part of the EU.
Since the President asked the Department of Commerce to launch the investigation into the national security impact of steel and aluminium imports last April, the Government have made clear to the Administration on repeated occasions, the potentially damaging impact of tariffs on the UK and the EU steel and aluminium industries. As part of its response to these US measures, the EU can apply a safeguard measure of its own to protect the steel and aluminium industries from being damaged by an influx of exports to the EU, caused by the displacing effect of US tariffs.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of steel exports to the US by volume that are specialist steel products that the US does not have capability to produce.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of steel exports to the US by volume that are specialist steel products that the US does not have capability to produce.
Total US imports of steel from the UK in 2017 were 351 thousand tonnes with a value of £360m. This represents 5% of UK steel production in 2017, in tonnage. We are assisting UK industry in working with US customers to build their cases for the exemption of individual products from the tariffs on US steel imports announced by President Trump.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what estimate his Department had made of the proportion of steel exports to the US by value which are specialist steel products that the US does not or has no capability to produce.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what estimate his Department had made of the proportion of steel exports to the US by value which are specialist steel products that the US does not or has no capability to produce.
Total US imports of steel from the UK in 2017 were 351 thousand tonnes with a value of £360m. This represents 5% of UK steel production in 2017, in tonnage. We are assisting UK industry in working with US customers to build their cases for the exemption of individual products from the tariffs on US steel imports announced by President Trump.