The big question is whether this U turn will lead to more

This leaves her plans for a balanced budget even further out of line. The tears brought a response from the Prime Minister Keir Starmer that Reeves will be Chancellor potentially until the next election.

This was far from encouraging news for those unimpressed with her approach and abilities. Her performance reflects a government that came to power almost a year ago with no real plan or vision, other than to blame the past government for the task it faced to fix the economy.

A year on, the economy is worse and the plan for financial discipline is in tatters, thanks to Starmer being humiliated into backing down over plans to curb welfare spending to meet the cost of higher defence and other spending. One group not sharing the outpouring of sympathy from some politicians for Reeves’ tears will be farmers. They are the group with cause for tears, thanks to her decision to change agricultural property relief and at a stroke wipe out the succession plans of every family farm in the UK, and particularly in Northern Ireland where land is owned rather than tenanted.

The big question now is whether a U-turn disguised as a moral decision on welfare could lead to other U-turns. For agriculture the obvious one is APR for family farms.

With MPs proving over the welfare cuts that change is possible, the 50 MPs who took previous Conservative rural seats should be rising up to demand APR change.

This is the only hope they have of keeping those seats at the next election.

The moral argument is as strong as it is against welfare cuts, provided the rules were adapted to favour family farms and against industrial scale tax avoidance. Compared to the welfare U-turn, the cost would be minimal and the impact powerful when food security needs to race up the political agenda.

The case is robust financially and morally but the chances of it happening are remote. APR is proof that tax decisions are not about what is morally right but about heading off party dissent, regardless of the cost to the taxpayer. Trade, particularly in agriculture and food, is a bright spot for the eurozone economy.

Despite many headwinds, 2025 has so far been a good year for Europe, with trade strong for both exports and imports.

The EU continues to enjoy a positive balance of trade between exports and imports and has gained new markets in countries hitting back at the Trump tariffs with retaliatory tariffs of their own.

This has brought some short term gain, but the bottom line remains that stability is a better outcome. Washington is putting a brave face on its tariff plan, claiming it is delivering billions in customs duties to justify planned tax cuts at home.

This hides the reality of a sinking US dollar.

It is down by over 13 per cent against the euro this year. Income from tariffs is more than offset by retaliatory tariffs and anti-American sentiment in traditionally strong markets for US businesses.

For the EU, now into eyeball to eyeball negotiations with the US over tariffs, these are anxious times. It is playing Trump cleverly, not engaging in verbal fisticuffs, but making clear it opposes tariffs and will retaliate fully if left with no other option. The EU has vulnerable sectors in this battle, particularly pharmaceuticals, and it is ready to make concessions to ward off this threat.

It may be forced to accept the 10 per cent base tariff to protect key sectors. The tough decision then will be whether to take this on the chin and allow Trump to claim victory, or match any tariffs even at 10 per cent.

That is a big judgement call and while the deadline for a deal is next week, there is already talk this may be rolled over again because Trump is finding the EU a tougher and more single-minded negotiator than he believed likely.

NATO members last week swallowed the bitter pill of boosting Trump’s ego, but in diplomatic terms Brussels is not minded to follow suit even if member states that are NATO members had to “big up” someone more renowned for his ego than judgement.