I’m not for free trade, and I’m not for protection

I approve of them both and to both have objection

In going through life, I continually find

It’s a terrible business to make up one’s mind

So in spite of all comments, reproach and predictions

I firmly adhere to unsettled convictions

– Sir Wilfred Lawson

AT the start of the 20th century, tariffs emerged as the wedge issue that was eventually to bring down the Conservative government of Arthur Balfour.

The UK had, for some time, been the richest country in the world — yes, this was a long time ago — thanks to its ability to rip off much of the globe and justify the plunder in the name of free trade orthodoxy.

But cabinet minister Joseph Chamberlain, an openly jingoist Edwardian prototype of Nigel Farage, launched a nationwide agitational campaign in favour of ‘imperial preference’, sparking Tory divisions that handed the Liberals a landslide in 1906.

Balfour was paralysed by an inability to come down on either side of the argument, prompting a Liberal MP of the period to lampoon him with the unimprovable doggerel quoted above.

Donald Trump would, of course, have sided with Radical Joe, as Chamberlain was known. But after his setback in the US Court of International Trade on Wednesday, world trade has been plunged into renewed uncertainty over the future of his central economic policy.

Essentially, the ruling is that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs willy-nilly, including on America’s main trading partners, is illegal.

Liberation Day seems to be the latest victim of cancel culture. But as our senior maritime reporter in New York, Greg Miller, puts it, the Trump 2.0 trade wars aren’t over yet. The White House instantly took the matter to appeal.

The Department of Justice is confident it will prevail, even if the matter has to go to the Supreme Court.

Analysts quoted by Greg suggest the immediate decision is positive for both container shipping and the liquefied petroleum gas segment. But that is assuming it holds.

In the meantime, there are several less sweeping workarounds that can be used on countries subject to specific Trumpian ire, not least China.

Lars Jensen of consultancy Vespucci Maritime put it pithily in an online post: “In practical terms, [the court ruling] adds a new level of uncertainty into the mix for US importers.”

Be of the firm belief that in economic terms, free trade is best by test. But for shipowners deciding what to do next, Wilson’s injunction to adhere to unsettled convictions is probably sage advice.

David Osler
Law and marine insurance editor, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing