Il y a eu des petits soucis au dos, je crois, Roseng.

Oui, de physique, oui.

Mais c'est vrai que, bon, cela au PGA, la concurrence est très, très forte.

Et même avec toutes les qualités qu'elle a, c'est certain que ce n'est pas évident de bien.

On voit Pauline qui a eu sa carte plusieurs fois, c'est difficile à tenir.

Bon, Maintenant, au niveau swing, c'est vraiment top.

Ce qu'on voit là, c'est un combat.

C'est quoi la suite de sa saison, la suite du programme pour Loïs ?

Sam, over to you for your comments.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the incredibly useful report that actually clearly articulates the answer to many questions I often receive.

I think one of the points I would make in terms of business impact, and I think it's captured here, is that it is prolonged.

It wasn't a one-off thing.

event for many businesses.

I mean, my day job is advising companies on their trade issues.

And I wouldn't say that EU-UK is the number one thing I get asked about, insofar as at the moment you've got the US, for example, and Donald Trump, which takes the award for that.

Sam, yes, your comments on that.

Has that happened? And where it has happened, what does that look like?

So it absolutely has happened insofar as in the first instance, the UK actually had to replace all of the free trade agreements it had as part of the European Union, and it largely did so successfully.

A couple of countries fell to the wayside, but we managed to replace Japan, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and others.

But then the UK did go off and strike a free trade agreement with New Zealand, with Australia, with India.

It acceded to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP.

The EU now has since moved on, for example, New Zealand, Australia, and India, but the UK did manage to do that more quickly.

So did the UK manage to fulfill the promise of many Brexiters that it would go off and strike new free trade agreements? In many instances, yes.

For goods and services?

Has that happened? And where it has happened, what does that look like?

So it absolutely has happened insofar as in the first instance, the UK actually had to replace all of the free trade agreements it had as part of the European Union.

And it largely did so successfully.

A couple of countries fell to the wayside, but we managed to replace Japan, Canada, Mexico, Chile and others.

But then the UK did go off and strike a free trade agreement with New Zealand, with Australia, with India.

It acceded to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP.

The EU now has since moved on, for example, New Zealand, Australia and India.

Overall?

What would the negative effect on the British economy be from that?

So the deal itself, in terms of its beneficiaries, largely, uh, all- uh, benefits UK exports of automotives in the first instance, also steel, and more recently, um, pharmaceuticals in the context of some recent tariffs that are going to come into force soon.

So for example, at the moment, a hundred thousand vehicles a year exported to the US from the UK are levied with a ten percent tariff rather than a twenty-five percent tariff.

Actually, a twenty-seven and a half percent tariff, sorry.

So if the de-deal were to go away, those vehicles would now receive a twenty-seven and a half percent tariff when entering the US.

So that would obviously be material for those companies [inaudible]

Now, do you think that there is willingness in Brussels to come to some sort of better arrangement with Britain that Britain could actually accept without Keir Starmer being accused of going back on the Brexit vote?

So I think no matter what Keir Starmer does in relation to the EU, he'll always be accused of [chuckles] going back on the, on the Brexit vote, at least in the domestic politics, because there's incentives to do so.

And we asked him, what does this mean for our trade deal?

The most important thing to note up front is that the court ruling solely applies to the so-called reciprocal tariffs, which is at the moment the 10% tariff that applies universally to all imports, and also the tariffs linked to fentanyl.

So these are the tariffs of varying levels linked specifically to Canada, Mexico and China.

This means that at least on the face of it, the UK/US deal is unaffected, given that this deal focuses exclusively on the 25% automotive tariff, which the deal possibly reduces 10% for a fixed number of vehicles and also possible future so-called Section 232 investigations on pharmaceuticals elsewhere, and, and of course steel, which is already in effect and should be going to zero.

So on the face of it, the UK/US agreement is unaffected, but I think the thing to note here is that it hasn't currently been implemented.

So while there are still question marks about the president's ability to impose the so-called reciprocal tariff, the US might be distracted, it might lead to delays in implementation, and then if it is the case that Trump is unable to impose this 10% duty and other reciprocal tariffs because he loses in the Supreme Court where this will probably be appealed to, that could lead him to revisit the UK deal, although I think at the moment that's a low probability.

And the reason it could lead him to revisit this deal is that the terms of trade have changed.