In his comment space, Paulo Portas focuses on the new and controversial fares imposed by Donald Trump to various countries of the world. The commentator explains the accounts that should be made so that “reciprocity” was effectively applied.
“It was the worst scenario of all those who could be predictable” Paulo Portas leaves criticism on April 2, called “Liberation Day” by the US President.
On Sunday’s global, his usual space of analysis, the commentator says that the term used by Trump to justify his decision – “reciprocity” – little has to do with the meaning that causes: “It is not, at all, a perfect formula or no controversy, but at least it had logic.”
According to Paulo Portas, he would imply “look at the US external fare to the US, compare with the US external tariff to these countries and try to correct the commercial deficit with each country, in the sense of at least the tariff barriers that the countries impose.” But “it was nothing that happened,” he concludes.
In fact, from his perspective, he was “a kind of account of a second year repeating student of the basics”, from which “absolute abnormalities resulted”. “First, the rates are all over two digits, more than 100 countries have been charged and then things like these happen,” he notes.
The commentator suggests that if there were reciprocity in the tariffs between the European Union and the US, perhaps Americans “could decree a supplementary rate of 1 or 2%”, as, he explains, the difference between US products in Europe and the tariffs practiced to European US products “is very small.” But “no one would be too impressed by that,” he says.
