When asked if this could result in a possible violation of international law, Boris Johnson responded, “these are difficult decisions we must make.”
The prime minister has indicated that import restrictions on steel, which were set to expire this week, may be extended.
It follows an approach proposed by the secretary of international trade on Thursday.
However, according to the Department of International Trade, no final decision has been made.
Mr. Johnson stated at the G7 summit in Germany that maintaining controls on foreign steel imports would protect British producers who are already under pressure from rising energy costs.
Mr. Johnson stated, “We need British steel to be supplied with significantly cheaper energy.”
However, until this issue is resolved, I believe it is reasonable for the UK steel industry to enjoy the same protections as every other European steel economy.
Mr. Johnson linked the resignation of his ethics adviser Lord Geidt to a disagreement over future steel tariff decisions earlier this month.
However, Mr. Geidt stated that this interpretation of his resignation did not reflect “the much broader scope of my objection.”
In response to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, the European Union introduced import restrictions in 2018 that is currently being considered. The United Kingdom replicated the controls after Brexit.
The restrictions, which impose a tariff on steel imports once a certain quota is reached, are referred to as “steel safeguards” because they are designed to protect the domestic market from influxes of cheap steel from abroad.
There are currently controls in place for fifteen categories of steel. While import restrictions on ten of these categories have already been extended to 2024, import restrictions on five categories will expire on June 30.
The extension of tariffs on steel imports is viewed as a potential violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.
When asked if the government was considering imposing tariffs that may be illegal, cabinet minister Brandon Lewis stated that the government’s priority was to “ensure compliance with international law.”
The Northern Ireland Secretary stated on the BBC’s Sunday Morning program that he was “not saying the government will do this” but that “this is something that is supported across the sector” and that the government must “look at all these things” and “get the balance right.”
UK Steel, a lobbying organization for the British steel industry, expressed confidence that extending the steel controls would be “WTO compliant” and that “there would be no legitimate reason for challenges.
Before making a final decision on whether or not to extend the safeguards, the Department of International Trade is consulting with foreign counterparts by World Trade Organization rules.
UK Steel stated that removing import restrictions would expose British steelmakers to a distorted global market, which could cause up to £150 million in annual losses.
Also speaking on the BBC’s Sunday Morning program, shadow foreign secretary David Lammy stated that the Labour Party would support the continuation of the tariffs.
“Both the EU and the United States have continued with this extension, so we would support him,” he said.
“Steelworkers, unions, industry, and the Labour Party all support him.”
Today, however, Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative member of parliament and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, tweeted: “Protectionism is detrimental to everyone. Tariffs are not conservative because they are a consumer tax.”
