A Quote by Leo Varadkar

The idea that you could send agricultural products to Tokyo and Osaka and not pay tariffs, and you would have to pay tariffs sending them to Manchester, is quite hard to fathom in the modern world.
Agricultural products ranging from citrus and dairy to beef and chicken face stifling tariffs or nontariff barriers in many countries around the world.
Tariffs are in the end taxes. And somebody has to pay that tax. I think one thing people are forgetting is that trade disputes are two-sided. When the United States imposes tariffs on a partner like Canada, there is always a possibility that Canada will say that's not fair and retaliate. And at that point, you have to ask the question, - which U.S. industry will suffer because the Canadians retaliated against it?
Everybody talks about tariffs as the first thing. Tariffs are the last thing. Tariffs are part of the negotiation. The real trick is going to be increase American exports. Get rid of some of the tariff and non-tariff barriers to American exports.
What [Donald] has put up for question is this idea of tariffs. Initially, he said if China won't stop taking advantage of us and manipulating their currency, then I will put tariffs in place. That spooked everybody because if you charge China a fee and an extra tariff for anything they bring into the United States, what's going to happen is that companies carrying those goods are going to raise prices. It's going to be expensive for people. People got scared of that, but then he walked that [idea] back. I don't think anybody is expecting heavy tariffs on anything.
When China got into the WTO, that allowed it to sell into any other country within the WTO - not just the United States - at the lowest tariffs that country offered. And the other countries could sell into China at the lowest tariffs that China offered. The problem, right off the bat, was that China had much higher tariffs than everywhere else, so the U.S. and Europe in particular got the short end of that stick.
France would be reluctant to embrace any proposal by the European Commission to slash agricultural tariffs if it threatened the European Union's Common Agriculture Policy .
Maybe vagueness has been good for me. The word means two different things in Tokyo and Osaka, you know. In Tokyo it means stupidity, but in Osaka they talk about vagueness in a painting and in a game of Go.
Under Ceta the E.U. checks products coming from Canada to ensure they do not originate in any other country - because if they did, they would be subject to E.U. tariffs. The same would happen if the U.K. had a Canada-style deal with the E.U.
In almost every case, whenever a tariff or quota is imposed on imports, that tax is strongly supported by the domestic industry getting the protective shield from lower-priced foreign competition. The sugar industry supports sugar tariffs; textile mills lobby for tariffs on foreign clothing.
Availability of the best also is limited in our culture. And it's also extremely expensive. It's ridiculous. A kilogram of rose oil costs me very much. By the time it is shipped here and we pay tariffs, how much more do I have to charge the consumer? And then who could afford to buy it? That is why people sell synthetic rose and end up poisoning themselves. It shouldn't be that way.
Egypt does not possess rich natural resources. Its agricultural area is relatively small - less than 10 per cent of the total land. Its growth relies on tourism, Suez Canal tariffs, and foreign investment.
U.S. corn exports to CAFTA countries will benefit from reduced tariffs and duty-free access for corn products.
Average tariffs between rich countries are only 3 per cent. But developing countries face tariffs of more than 300 per cent in the EU for meat and more than 200 per cent in the US for fruit and nuts. These need to come down dramatically.
[China] don't follow the rules and, if they don't, we're going to institute tariffs. When they send something into our country - and, believe me, they're going to obey our rules so quickly, you have no idea. And we'll end up with a better relationship with China than we do now.
Tariffs that save jobs in the steel industry mean higher steel prices, which in turn means fewer sales of American steel products around the world and losses of far more jobs than are saved.
One thinks that one is winning when we slap tariffs or introduce barriers to imports from another country, and we think we win. But you lose when you export because the other countries are going to raise tariffs as well. They're going to introduce barriers as well. So you win with one hand and you lose with the other.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!