Connect with us

Published

on

Soul searching about the UK’s role in the world has broken out again following the publication of a pamphlet by senior diplomats including Mark Sedwill, a former Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser.

The World in 2040: Renewing The UK’s Approach To International Affairs is being denounced for suggesting the Foreign Office should change its name and tone down its grand headquarters built in 1868 at the height of Great Britain’s imperial pomp.

The authors believe a lower profile would befit the reality of our station in the world.

“The UK finds itself today in a changed role as a medium-sized ‘off shore’ power”, the report asserts without explicitly mentioning Brexit.

“Our future has more in common with G20 nations like Japan and in Europe like Norway and Switzerland whose economies are closely linked to major economic neighbours.”

Britain's Foreign Secretary David Cameron at Government House for the annual Australia-UK Ministerial Consultations (AUKMIN), in Adelaide, Australia March 22, 2024. AAP Image/Matt Turner via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVE. AUSTRALIA OUT. NEW ZEALAND OUT. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN NEW ZEALAND. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN AUSTRALIA.
Image:
Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron visiting Australia in March. Pic: Reuters

The report argues “the UK has often sought to promote an image of ‘greatness’ to the world which today seems anachronistic. We will be envied for what we are good at, not what we say we are good at”.

This modest proposal to “work with others to try and address the challenges we collectively face” contrasts in style to the bold figure cut this week by Foreign Secretary David Cameron as he bestrode the globe’s biggest diplomatic stage, in the United States, to talk tough on Ukraine and Gaza.

More on David Cameron

Lord Cameron is not a man who thinks it is time to play down the ‘Great’ in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For that matter, the current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer agree with him.

Even Mr Cameron’s detractors admit that he looks the part that we have come to expect of the top British representative abroad. The New York Times described the Foreign Secretary as “almost” a prime minister.

FILE PHOTO: Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump attends the 2024 Senior Club Championship award ceremony at his Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. March 24, 2024. REUTERS/Marco Bello/File Photo/File Photo
Image:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at the 2024 Senior Club Championship award ceremony in Florida last month. File Pic: Reuters

Donald Trump certainly would have not invited him to dinner in Mar-a-Lago unless he saw him as a fitting match for his own stratospheric estimate of his own importance. Trump’s Republican sidekick, House Speaker Mike Johnson, looked puny in comparison being “too busy” to hear Mr Cameron’s arguments.

The British government says it is important to build links to the man who may be the next US president but Mr Cameron’s visit had, at best, mixed results. The British are not the only ones who are status conscious. Mr Cameron was not granted even a “brush by” or “drop in” by President Joe Biden, perhaps because he had not forewarned the White House he would be visiting his election rival.

Does the UK’s US-centric approach, simultaneously presumptuous and bootlicking, benefit Britain? Rather than trying to be both a great power and “junior partner to America”, as Mr Cameron put it to me on his first prime ministerial visit to Washington, should the UK be pursuing a broader network of co-operative relationships, as the report suggests?

Former UK Cabinet Secretary and National Security Advisor to the Cabinet Office Lord Mark Sedwill. File pic: Reuters
Image:
Former UK Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser to the Cabinet Office Lord Mark Sedwill. File pic: Reuters

Great Britain was a geographical description before it became a patriotic boast. Dating back at least 800 years, Grete Britaigne was simply the bigger space where most Britons lived in contrast to Britanny, the lesser Britain in physical terms.

Former PM Lord Cameron presided over the weaponising of the word Great. A campaign launched in 2011 by the Foreign Office, of all departments, morphed innocuously into a series of posters for the 2012 London Olympics.

These celebrated the host country’s assets such as science, sport, or music, proclaiming each one “is Great”.

Read more on Sky News:
Loggerhead turtles wash up in UK – thousands of miles away from home
How Scotland’s ferry fiasco became a national scandal

This was ahead of Mr Trump’s “Make America Great Again”, though not Ronald Reagan’s use in 1980 of the same campaign phrase.

By 2015 “Britain is Great” had become an official campaign across all government departments. It is still in operation and on display in the UK’s official outposts around the world.

‘Broken Britain’

In a write up for the official civil service quarterly, the cabinet office noted that it worked even in these times of economic constraint, insisting “you don’t need lots of resource but you do need plenty of passion” to get the message across.

The UK and the rest of the world have changed a lot since London 2012. Great Britain may not be wiping out widespread popular perceptions of “Broken Britain”.

In spite of dirty rivers, a struggling NHS, increasing inequality, creaking infrastructure, a declining military and high taxes, we Britons like telling each other that things are “Great”.

There are the Great British Bake-Off and the Great North Run. Boris Johnson won the election in 2019 with the pledge to make this “the greatest place on earth”. The government’s latest plan is for Great British Railways, Labour promises to deliver Great British Energy.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

The diplomats who produced the report include Lord Sedwill, Thomas Fletcher, a former ambassador and Number Ten foreign policy advisor and Moazzam Malik, ex-Foreign Office Director General.

They have represented the UK abroad and to foreigners. They know that you can’t always get what you want and that insisting you are great can be grating.

It is easy for their political masters at home to borrow Boris Johnson’s vocabulary and criticise gloomsters, doomsters and naysayers, while doing nothing themselves to deliver better results in practice.

Britain may not be great in the sense that it is no longer a dominant world power like the US or China, but it is defeatist to write it off as a middle-sized power.

There are around 200 nations in the world. As the report acknowledges, the UK has the sixth largest economy and is a significant “soft power” with world class universities second only to the US.

The UK is also 21st in GDP per capita, one of only five permanent members of the UN Security Council, a possessor of an independent nuclear deterrent, a leading defence contributor to NATO, the prime mover of the Commonwealth and the origin of the world language, English.

Even the colonial overtones of the Empire, which the report wants to downplay, point to global reach, even if it is troubled. Great Britain should not boast but there is no need for the UK to run itself down either.

It might be better to rename the currently cumbersome Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as simply The Foreign Office rather than to rebrand it apologetically as the Department for International Affairs – which would in any case provoke tabloid investigations of diplomatic bed hopping.

Wherever politicians and officials stand on these pressing questions, argument about words, flags and what pictures to hang on the wall is a distraction from what really matters for Britain’s future.

Lord Sedwill notes dryly in his report that “influence abroad arises from political and economic success at home” and not from how great we claim we are.

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report

Published

on

By

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report

The growing adoption of cryptocurrencies may pose risks to the traditional financial system and exacerbate wealth inequality, according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

In an April 15 report, the BIS warned that the number of investors and amount of capital in crypto and decentralized finance (DeFi) have “reached a critical mass,” with investor protection becoming a “significant concern for regulators.”

The size of the crypto market signals that authorities should be worried about the “stability of crypto over and above the role it may have for TradFi and the real economy,” the report states, highlighting the role of stablecoins, which the BIS said have “become the means through which participants transfer value within crypto.”

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report
BIS report on crypto and DeFi’s functions and financial stability implications. Source: BIS

The report calls for targeted stablecoin regulation on stability and reserve asset requirements that will guarantee the redemption of stablecoins for US dollars during “stressed market conditions.”

Related: Spar supermarket in Switzerland starts accepting Bitcoin payments

The report comes two weeks after the US House Financial Services Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32–17 vote on April 2.

Cryptocurrencies, Banking, Banks, Central Bank, Bitcoin Price, Investments, Bitcoin Regulation, United States, BIS, Stablecoin, Cryptocurrency Investment, Bitcoin Adoption
Source: Financial Services GOP

The STABLE Act aims to create a clear regulatory framework for dollar-denominated payment stablecoins, emphasizing transparency and consumer protection.

On March 13, the GENIUS Act, short for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 18–6. The act aims to establish collateralization guidelines and require full compliance with Anti-Money Laundering laws from stablecoin issuers.

Related: $400M Web3 investment fund ABCDE halts new investments, fundraising

Crypto may exacerbate wealth gap

The BIS also raised concerns about how crypto markets may worsen income inequality by enabling larger investors to capitalize on the emotions of less sophisticated retail participants, as seen during the FTX collapse in 2022.

Crypto, DeFi may widen wealth gap, destabilize finance: BIS report
Whale vs retail activity after FTX collapse. Source:  BIS

“As prices tumbled in 2022, users actually traded more,” the BIS report noted. “Most disturbingly, large bitcoin holders (“whales”) were selling as ordinary retail investors (“krill”) were buying.” It added:

“This implies that the crypto market, which is often presented as an opportunity for inclusive growth and financial stability, can be a means for redistributing wealth from the poorer to the wealthier.”

The report concludes that DeFi and TradFi have similar underlying economic drivers, but DeFi’s “distinctive features,” like “smart contract and composability,” present new challenges that need proactive regulatory interventions to “safeguard financial stability, while fostering innovation.”

Magazine: Uni students crypto ‘grooming’ scandal, 67K scammed by fake women: Asia Express

Continue Reading

Politics

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

Published

on

By

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

Tariffs, explained: How they work and why they matter

What are tariffs?

Tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods by a government or a supranational union. Occasionally, tariffs can be applied to exports as well. They generate government revenue and serve as a trade regulation tool, often to shield domestic industries.

Four main categories of tariffs are:

  • Ad valorem tariffs: These are calculated as a percentage of the good’s value. For instance, a 20% tax might be placed on $100 of goods.
  • Specific tariffs: These are fixed fees based on the quantity of goods. For example, there might be a tariff of $5 per imported kilogram of sugar.
  • Compound tariffs: These combine a specific duty and an ad valorem duty applied to the same imported goods. Both tariffs are calculated together to determine the total tax. For example, a country might place a tariff on imported wine at $5 per liter plus 10% of the wine’s value.
  • Mixed tariffs: Mixed tariffs apply either a specific duty or an ad valorem duty, based on predefined conditions. For instance, for imported trucks, a country might charge either $5,000 per vehicle or 15% of the car’s value, whichever is greater.

The objective of such policy is to influence international trade flows, protect domestic industries, and respond to unfair practices by foreign countries. When a tariff is applied to an imported good, it raises its cost, making domestically produced alternatives more lucrative for customers regarding price.

In the US, the Trump administration uses reciprocal tariffs as a key instrument in influencing the trade policies of other countries. Reciprocal tariffs are trade duties a country imposes in retaliation to tariffs or barriers set by another country. This policy seeks to correct trade imbalances and safeguard domestic industries.

Tariffs are generally collected by the customs departments of a country at ports of entry based on the declared value and classification of goods.

Did you know? Some countries use tariff-rate quotas, allowing a set quantity of a product to be imported at a lower tariff. Once the quota is exceeded, a higher tariff kicks in. This system balances domestic protection with access to global markets, especially in sectors like agriculture and textiles.

Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on April 2, 2025, a day he called Liberation Day, citing his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order placed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports effective April 5, 2025. Reciprocal tariffs went into effect on April 9, 2025. 

Trump stated that the US would apply reciprocal tariffs at roughly half the rate imposed by other countries. For instance, the US imposed a 34% tariff in response to China’s 67%. A 25% tariff on all automobile imports was also announced.

Breakdown of reciprocal tariffs by country

The Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff policy is rooted in the belief that the US faced long-standing trade imbalances and unfair treatment by global trading partners. To address this, his administration pushed for what it called reciprocal tariffs, aiming at setting a tariff structure that matched or at least was close to tariffs that foreign nations imposed on American exports.

Under this approach, the administration used tariff policies to pressure countries to lower their trade barriers or renegotiate trade deals. The policy drew support from domestic manufacturers and labor groups for attempting to rebalance trade and support the US industry. But it also sparked criticism from economists and international allies who viewed it as protectionist and destabilizing the prevalent economic system in the world. 

The reciprocal tariffs policy has reshaped US trade relations and marked a departure from decades of multilateral, open global trade policy.

Did you know? Tariffs can reshape supply chains. To avoid high import taxes, companies often relocate manufacturing to countries with favorable trade agreements. This shift doesn’t always benefit consumers, as savings are not always passed down, and logistics become more complex.

The US–China tariff war: A defining economic conflict

The US–China tariff war, which began in 2018 under the first Trump administration, marked a significant shift in global economic relations. The conflict between the world’s two largest economies had broad implications for global supply chains, inflation and geopolitical dynamics.

The trade conflict between the US and China wasn’t just a bilateral spat. It signaled a structural rethinking of trade policy in a multipolar world. The trade war began after the US imposed sweeping tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers by China. 

Over time, the US levied tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of US exports, targeting key sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.

The conflict disrupted major supply chains and raised costs for American businesses and consumers. American farmers were hit hard by retaliatory Chinese tariffs on soybeans, leading the US government to provide billions in subsidies to offset losses.

While the Phase One Agreement in 2020 eased tensions and required China to increase purchases of US goods and enforce intellectual property protections, many tariffs remained in place. The Biden administration retained most of the economic measures imposed by the first Trump administration, signaling bipartisan concern over China’s trade practices.

As of April 10, 2025, Trump had imposed 125% tariffs on China, while for 75 countries, he had paused the imposition of tariffs for 90 days.

Trump regime has imposed harsh tariffs on China

Compared to disputes with allies like the European Union or Canada, the stakes are higher in the US–China conflict, and the consequences are more far-reaching. 

Here are the responses of various governments to Trump’s tariffs:

  • Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney implemented a 25% tariff on US-made cars and trucks.
  • China will impose a 34% tariff on all US imports, effective April 10.
  • The French prime minister described the tariffs as an economic catastrophe.
  • Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized the tariffs as wrong.
  • European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen pledged a unified response and prepared countermeasures.
  • Taiwan’s government denounced the tariffs as unreasonable.

How do tariffs work?

When a tariff is applied — for example, a 30% tax on imported steel — it raises the price of that good for importers. They, in turn, pass these added costs to downstream businesses, which further transfer these costs to consumers.

For importers, tariffs mean higher purchase costs. If a US company imports machinery from abroad and faces a tariff, its total cost increases. This possibly reduces its profit margins or forces it to search for alternatives. Exporters in other countries may suffer if US buyers reduce orders due to higher prices, hurting their competitiveness.

Domestic producers may benefit initially from a high tariff regime. Tariffs can shield them from cheaper foreign competition, allowing them to increase sales and potentially make profits. But if their operations rely on imported components subject to tariffs, their input costs may rise, offsetting gains.

Consumers often bear the brunt. Tariffs can lead to price hikes on everyday goods — from electronics to apparel. In the long term, high tariffs contribute to inflation and reduce purchasing power.

Tariffs also disrupt global supply chains. Many products are assembled using components from multiple countries. High tariffs on one component can cause delays, prompt redesigns, or force companies to relocate manufacturing, increasing complexity and costs.

Overall, while tariffs aim to protect domestic industries, their impact is felt across the economy through altering prices, trade flows and business strategies. One way or another, tariffs influence everyone — from factory owners to workers and everyday shoppers.

Trump excluded various tech products, such as smartphones, chips, computers and certain electronics, from reciprocal tariffs, providing the tech sector with crucial relief from tariff pressure. This step of Trump eased pressure on tech stocks. 

Trump’s tariff announcement on April 2 triggered a sharp sell-off in both equities and Bitcoin (BTC), with BTC plunging 10.5% in a week. Once seen as a non-correlated asset, Bitcoin now trades in sync with tech stocks during macro shocks. According to analysts, institutional investors increasingly treat BTC as a risk-on asset closely tied to policy shifts. While some view Bitcoin as digital gold, recent behavior shows it reacting more like Nasdaq stocks — falling during global uncertainty and rallying on positive sentiment.

Bitcoin vs. tech stocks

Did you know? Tariff exemptions can be highly strategic. Governments may exclude specific industries or companies, allowing them to import goods tariff-free while competitors pay more. This creates an uneven playing field and can spark domestic controversy.

Why do tariffs matter for global markets?

Tariffs are a robust tool in the hands of governments to shape a nation’s economic and trade strategy. They are not merely taxes on imports but a tool that influences domestic production, consumer behavior and global trade relationships.

For the US, tariffs have historically been used to assert economic power on the global stage, protect emerging industries, and respond to unfair trade practices. 

When countries with large economies are involved, tariff decisions can impact global supply chains, shift manufacturing hubs, and alter the price of goods worldwide. Even for the smaller countries, in an interconnected world, tariffs matter because their impact goes far beyond national borders. 

Domestically, tariffs could boost local industries by making foreign goods more expensive. This can create jobs and support economic resilience in the short term. 

Governments getting larger revenue via tariffs will enable them to reduce direct taxes as Trump proposed. But they can also raise prices for consumers, hurt exporters, and trigger retaliation from trade partners.

As geopolitical tensions rise and nations reevaluate their economic dependencies, tariffs have reemerged as a central element of US trade policy. 

Whether used defensively or offensively, they shape the balance between protectionism and global engagement. This makes tariffs a matter not just of economics, but of national strategy and global influence.

Who sets tariff policy in the US?

In the US, tariff policy is shaped by a combination of legislative authority, executive power and administrative enforcement. Various agencies also help in the execution of tariff policy.

Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate trade and impose tariffs. Over time, Congress has given the president significant power to change tariffs for national security, economic threats or trade violations.

The Office of the US Trade Representative plays a central role in formulating and negotiating US trade policy. It leads trade talks, manages disputes, and recommends tariff actions, often in coordination with the president and Congress.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for enforcing tariffs at ports of entry. CBP collects duties based on the classification and value of imported goods according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.

Several major trade laws have shaped tariff policy in the US. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting US farmers during the Great Depression, led to retaliatory tariffs and worsened global trade. 

Later, the Trade Act of 1974 gave the president tools like Section 301, which was used extensively during the US–China trade war to impose retaliatory tariffs on unfair foreign practices.

Together, these actors and laws form the foundation of US tariff policy.

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy

Criticism of Trump’s tariff policy surfaced following the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. Critics say this move bypasses Congress and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power in economic matters.

Detractors argue that these tariffs hurt American businesses more than their intended foreign targets. A Vox article argued that low-income people would be hit more by Trump’s tariffs than by the already reeling Wall Street. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers fears that America may slip into recession due to tariffs, probably costing 2 million jobs nationwide.

A critic declares Trump's tariffs  a catastrophe

Legal challenges have also emerged regarding Trump’s tariff policy. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal group, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Simplified, a small business based in Florida that sells planners and sources goods from China. The lawsuit claims that the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when imposing tariffs in a non-emergency trade context.

Small and mid-sized businesses, many of which rely on global supply chains, will have to deal with rising import costs due to tariffs. This may lead to inflation and reduced competitiveness of such businesses. 

While the tariffs might hit China financially in the short term, the action could result in higher prices for US consumers and disrupt operations for American firms if the tariff policy continues for a long time.

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Return hubs’ get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers

Published

on

By

'Return hubs' get UN backing in boost for potential plans to deport failed asylum seekers

“Return hubs” that would see Britain send failed asylum seekers to another country have been endorsed by the UN’s refugee agency.

There have been reports that Sir Keir Starmer’s government is looking into deporting illegal migrants to the Balkans.

According to The Times, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper met the UN’s high commissioner for refugees last month to discuss the idea.

It would see the government pay countries in the Balkans to take failed asylum seekers – a prospect ministers hope might discourage people from crossing the Channel in small boats.

A total of 9,099 migrants have made that journey so far this year, including more than 700 on Tuesday this week – the highest number on a single day in 2025.

One migrant died while trying to make the crossing on Friday.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

One dead in Channel crossing

The UN’s refugee agency has set out how such hubs could work while meeting its legal standards in a document published earlier this week.

It recommended monitoring the hubs to make sure human rights standards are “reliably met”.

The country hosting the return hub would need to grant temporary legal status for migrants, and the country sending the failed asylum seekers would need to support it to make sure there are “adequate accommodation and reception arrangements”.

A UK government source said it was a helpful intervention that could make the legal pathway to some form of return hub model smoother.

Read more from Sky News:
How Japan could shape future of NHS

Can the Lib Dems secure election success?

It comes after the EU Commission proposed allowing EU members to set up so-called “return hubs” abroad, with member state Italy having already started sending illegal migrants abroad.

It sends people with no right to remain to Italian-run detention centres in Albania, something Sir Keir has taken an interest in since coming to power.

With Reform UK leading Labour in several opinion polls this year, the prime minister has been talking tough on immigration – but the figures around Channel crossings have made for difficult reading.

Continue Reading

Trending